Talk:Juno (film)

Peer review?

What say we ask for a peer review and then see if we can move this on to FA? It's gonna take some work, I think, but Juno's been in the news recently, what with Palin's daughter and so forth.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to start the process of implementing the peer review and getting this to FAC in the New Year. Help and an experienced co nominator would be appreciated.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:40, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the main concern with the article right now is from Reception downwards. The critical reaction needs serious bulking up, there seem to be rather a few awards missing (mostly film festivals), and there are many "questionable" sources that would never ever make it through FAC. I do commend you, though, for getting this going - there is potential here but unfortunately Procrastination is my first middle name. —97198 (talk) 13:43, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, the peer review implementation is the place to start. You are right, this is going to take time. But I think with work it will make it through.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:46, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Bristol Palin?

Is it really necessary to go into a lot of detail about Palin's daughter? I mean, yeah, that's a big event but I haven't seen too many Juno comparisions.--CyberGhostface (talk) 12:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

There were quite a number on google. I think it is necessary, to establish the situation. Right now, the Bristol Palin situation is well known in the US, but it may not be so for non-Americans or even for Americans in a few years, and so we have to explain the situation in an NPOV manner, and it is done in a brief and neutral manner. Then we move on to the comparison, which is also done in my view in an NPOV manner.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• Having the section title include 'comparisons with Bristol Palin' placed too much emphasis on that aspect of 'the effect'. The effect section discusses other situations too, not just Bristol's. Also, one reference was attempting to cite 'comparisons' between Juno and Bristol when the article clearly did not make any such comparisons; the article merely stated that the movie had come out before these recent events. On a side note, I for one would be very interested to know if Bristol has ever seen this movie (somehow I'm guessing that it wouldn't be something her parents would approve of her watching). Dp76764 (talk) 18:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• I've rephrased the language that you've objected to and reinstated the ref for the purpose of showing that the media did cover it; what was there before was technically correct but perhaps ambiguous. As for whether she had watched it, well, better watching it than pregnant, I'd think. Not that teenagers of her age take easily to correction and forbidding. And CyberGhostface, please do not remove sourced material, like the Friedman quote, without explanation. Maybe you haven't seen many Juno comparisons, but deleting sourced material to force the same fate on the reader isn't kosher.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• I still don't like the context of that citation; it still implies that that article is making a comparison between the 2 situations. Any citation in that sentence is going to have to support that 'comparison' aspect of the sentence. Dp76764 (talk) 18:57, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• I'll rephrase again. Hang on.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• It might just need to be moved to another sentence? The Toronto Star ref might also need some movement; that article also does not make any comparisons (it seems to only serve as the source of a quote). Dp76764 (talk) 18:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I kept them in the same sentence, but separate clauses, changed the TS to the New Republic, and will add a second news article, as soon as I pick and choose a nice one that won't turn into a subscription only thing.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• Looking good so far! Dp76764 (talk) 19:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• Added a Houston Chronicle editorial. I still want to play with the phrasing about the commentators, but gonna do some thinking about it.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Are we going to make a big paragraph about Jamie Lynn Spear's pregnancy?--CyberGhostface (talk) 19:33, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• Only if there are adequate sources to justify such a paragraph? Dp76764 (talk) 19:36, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Some of the sources mention Jamie Lynn. We can mention her if it makes you happy, but I did not intend to add additional material unless there's feeling we haven't been thorough enough, or unless there is additional coverage.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:38, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, for the sake of argument: A Google search for "Bristol Palin" "Juno" gets 38,200 hits. A google search for "Juno" "Jamie Lynn" gets 186,000 hits. And there's the fact that Jamie Lynn's far more of a role model to young teens. I mean, Bristol's notable because she's the daughter of John McCain's VP nominee, but she's not exactly a TV/music star.

But my personal opinion? At best, both Bristol and Jamie deserve a couple of sentences in the opening paragraph of the "Juno Effect" section saying that they were both pregnant teenagers who were compared to Juno. I don't think either one warrants much further discussion, unless it's revealed that one of them got pregnant because they wanted to emulate the film. Because as it is now, it's just the media having fun with an ironic situation.--CyberGhostface (talk) 20:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course, Jamie Lynn's pregnancy has been known for some time. We've had less than three weeks on the Palin thing. Anyway, why don't we see what the peer review has to say about this, and then the FAC? They are better editors than us, probably.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• I'll agree that we could probably stand to trim down all this; it does seem a little Bristol-centric imho. Peer review is a good idea too. Dp76764 (talk) 20:33, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, sounds good. I think they will likely trim it, but at least then it isn't just us and our personal opinions. I'm afraid of going to FAC and them saying "Well, it isn't comprehensive, what about the Juneau Juno?"--Wehwalt (talk) 20:36, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Nice job on the Juno effect editing. 71.139.34.78 (talk) 23:58, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm now thinking that this whole section smacks of a "Pop culture references" section. Is there any hard evidence that Juno the film has influenced teenage girls to get pregnant? No, because that's nearly impossible to quantify and eliminate real life influences from fictional ones. Juno is simply a very popular, recent film that is fun to reference when discussing today's prominent teens who get pregnant. Teenagers have been getting pregnant since time immemorial. Juno is just a reflection of the latest cultural attitudes about this issue. This Wikipedia article is supposed to be about the film Juno itself, not about pop culture references to the film or teen pregnancy in North America. If Juno is seen to have influenced other films, then great, include it. But any cause and effect with actual teens getting pregnant is nearly impossible to prove. All we have is a lot of mentions of the film, and I think that should be minimized in this article. --Melty girl 18:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• Excellent point. I agree 100% Dp76764 (talk) 18:41, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree; it is difficult to quantify. I think we have to have some mention of the so-called effect and of Palin, simply because of the MSM coverage. What do you propose to do? As we move forward towards a possible FAC, I don't want to see this penalized either for overemphasis or ignoring it.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I actually don't think the press coverage dictates anything. Just because Juno is being referred to in the media right now to dress up stories doesn't necessarily mean much for an article about the film. What I'm suggesting is that this section is akin to a section on "Pop culture references," and that's often anathema in FAC. Ask yourself, what does Bristol Palin have to do with the film Juno? Should every pregnant teen celebrity be mentioned here? What if Miley Cyrus gets pregnant next year and people name check Juno in the coverage -- must she be added to this article? Should every mention of Juno in an article about teen pregnancy be touched upon? Should teen pregnancy statistics before and after Juno be thoroughly discussed? I think this is all somewhat outside the scope of a Wikipedia article about the film. This is not the film influencing our arts or culture, it's the film simply being mentioned. Bristol Palin is not pregnant because she saw Juno. This is not a sociology article about teen pregnancy. My two cents. --Melty girl 03:46, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• Actually, I think some of the mentions may be trying to insinuate that the film is trying to influence culture; though they are certainly all opinion pieces so far and not actual research. So yeah, until there's actual research done/reported, the relevance to this article is minimal. Another $0.02 Dp76764 (talk) 03:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Unless studies are done on the so-called Juno effect, or the media controversy rises to the firestorm level of something such as Congressional hearings about the influence of the film on today's teens' sexual behavior (a la the PMRC), I'm not sure that this is any better than a "References in pop culture" section. --Melty girl 05:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. Unless we have some girls who deliberately got pregnant to copy Juno, but even then...it's not as if we chronicle all the people who emulate horror films in their respective articles. (Remember when Scream came out?) Although I can see pregnant teenagers deciding to keep their babies based on Juno, but that's just uncited speculation on my part.--CyberGhostface (talk) 17:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone makes that huge a decision based on seeing a movie, not even a pregnant child. Even teens, who aren't entirely mature/realistic, make that kind of decision based on their family life, moral beliefs, economic status, life goals, peer examples, and other real life issues. Unless they saw the movie 100 times and were completely obsessed, I wouldn't put much stock in the idea that Juno could be the major reason behind a decision like that. Anyway, I think we're basically in agreement about this section.

There are multiple editors skeptical of this section of the article. Is someone going to remove it or edit it down carefully?--Melty girl 00:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying they'd keep their child just based on Juno alone, but I think (for example) that scenes such as Juno's parents being accepting of her predicament and not throwing her out on the curb might have been encouraging to teens in similar situations. But I'm not saying that a girl would say "Oh, Juno kept her child, I guess I'll keep mine". Although I admit I'm pretty much guessing as I haven't known any teenagers who got pregnant in real life. (On a similar note, I read that an episode of Ugly Betty where a gay character came out to his mother actually convinced some gay people in real life to tell their parents)--CyberGhostface (talk) 01:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

If it has no staying power, get rid of it. Do we want to keep some of the Palin material, or trash that too?--Wehwalt (talk) 00:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Opening line in the plot

An anon IP is trying to change

Sixteen-year-old Minnesotan high-schooler Juno MacGuff (Ellen Page) discovers she is pregnant with a child fathered by her friend and longtime admirer, Paulie Bleeker (Michael Cera).

to

Sixteen-year-old Minnesotan high-schooler Juno MacGuff (Ellen Page) discovers she is pregnant after she fornicated with her longtime admirer, Paulie Bleeker (Michael Cera).

He hasn't attempted to explain his edits, he's just reverting anyone who's changing it. Obviously, I think the first one is the better out of the two, but at the very least I was hoping a consensus could be reached here first. Hopefully the anon IP will share his thoughts as well.--CyberGhostface (talk) 12:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I will share my thoughts, I am an English major with a minor in pre-law studies, this Wikipedia article was brought up in one of my classes. "Fathered" is not the proper word for it, "fornication" is.

Fornictation means: 

for·ni·cate [fáwrni kàyt] (past and past participle for·ni·cat·ed, present participle for·ni·cat·ing, 3rd person present singular for·ni·cates) intransitive verb

have sex outside marriage: to have sexual intercourse outside marriage (formal) 

Microsoft® Encarta® 2008. © 1993-2007 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

It is somewhat more politically correct than pre-marital sex, but if you want, I can use the legal definition of "fornication" from a legal dictionary. "Fathered" sounds similar to something used on Maury, "In the case of 6 month old Shanekqua, you are NOT the father. - George —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.87.134.2 (talk) 20:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Can we change to just 'had sex'? That seems simple and less technical for an article about a teen comedy.--CyberGhostface (talk) 22:32, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Well it is obvious that they had sex if it was an unplanned pregnancy, I am going to change it back to the term "fornication", if somesone is going to block me, most of my classmates said they will change it back to the proper term. - George —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.87.134.2 (talk) 22:41, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Why exactly is the term 'fornication' so important to use for you? It's obvious they had sex, so I don't see why it's such a huge deal for it to say that. The term 'fornication' isn't even the film or any of the related sources about the film.--CyberGhostface (talk) 23:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, if you're going to have your fellow meat puppets or classmates to do your edits, I can easily get this page protected to prevent IP edits.--CyberGhostface (talk) 23:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Cyber, you're too generous trying to discuss this. "Fornication" is too biased, politically loaded and archaic for use here. It's totally inappropriate. This isn't church. --Melty girl 23:32, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Anon is focusing too much on the denotation and not enough on the connotation of the word.--SquareOuroboros (talk) 00:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Correct. "Fornication" is not a good phrasing for the reason stated by Melty.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:27, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay this is bugging me....for the longest time....

okay so i was browsing for some korean movies to watch when this title JENNY JUNO popped up...i was like what......let me check out and i did...it was almost the same story line...just that JUNO's story line changed a bit...but it was funny how they didn't even credit Jenny Juno...i mean not to be rude..for some funny reasons....screen writers here in america have a thing about getting ideas from "other" people...i mean for what you...know...don't you have any other bright ideas?? and of course this JUNO movie was such a hit..it got awards left to right...don't be mad at me...i just want to point this out....thanks for reading...and yeah Jenny Juno was out in 2005 and Juno was out in what... 2007..yeah...but i guess the screen writers don't want to admit about this issue....--67.126.207.140 (talk) 02:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Diablo Cody brought this up on her blog.

Unbeknownst to me, we had another spiritual cousin out there, a Korean movie called Juno Jenny. This time, the cousinry goes one step further and the movie is about--seriously--a pregnant teenager and her cute, sweet boyfriend. (The guy character is named Juno, not the girl.) There's no adoption subplot and apparently the film is otherwise dissimilar to mine, but how *beep* up is that? I bring this up because a journalist drilled me about it recently--awkward!--and also because I saw someone on our IMDb board wondering if Juno was a remake of the K-flick. So for the record, 1.) it isn't a remake 2.) I haven't seen Juno Jenny, though I want to now, and 3.) I don't think anyone would even bat an eye about this if my film was called Jenny. The name Juno is just so darned distinctive that confusion is inevitable.

Also, if Cody did rip off a Korean film and was dumb enough to use enough the same character's name...trust me, a lot more people would have been talking about it, and there'd probably be a lawsuit.--CyberGhostface (talk) 02:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

yeah, coincidence my butt. this movie was completely stolen from the Korean movie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.74.165.74 (talk) 12:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Right, because I'm sure it has nothing to do with the mythological Juno, and how she was believed to be a Goddess of birth and fertility?--CyberGhostface (talk) 13:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, there was me thinking it was a tribute to Juno Beach in Normandy, where the Canadian forces landed ;-) almost-instinct 11:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Isn't it about the character from Beetlejuice? The old lady who supervises the ghosts? Sorry if it isn't, I've been too busy undergoing torture by TFA (tonight) AND by RfA to think straight.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:45, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Peer review results

We've received a number of suggestions through the peer review. As I am traveling, I could use some help in implementing. The peer review may be found here.[1]--Wehwalt (talk) 18:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Japanese official website and Japanese logo

As you know, Wikipedia is supposed to hold a worldwide view and perspective.

Therefore it is acceptable to post an external link of the official Japanese website for Juno, and it is acceptable to post the Japanese logo for Juno (since it differs so heavily from the U.S. logo). WhisperToMe (talk) 13:07, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

IMHO: since this is the english language WP I can't see why a japanese language website is of any use. To me it seems to be just spam or fancruft, certainly excessive linking, and def not notable. almost-instinct 13:13, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

First Wikipedia defines Spam here Wikipedia:Spam - Spam has to do with intent. The examples here do not match with this.

Next we have fancruft. Wikipedia:Fancruft is an essay, yes. But it says nothing about external links and it mentions that the designation in and of itself is controversial.

Finally there may be aspects of the movie that can be sourced from this website (this EL could contain release dates and other information - I haven't looked at it extensively) - While English-language sources are preferred, we can use non-English sources. Therefore in this case non-English external links are acceptable. For instance we have this subpage: http://movies.foxjapan.com/juno/news/index.html - I will autotranslate it in Google to see what this has, but it is likely that at least some of this information is not available in English-language sources. WhisperToMe (talk) 13:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

As for EL, policy, Wikipedia:EL#Non-English_language_content states "It may be appropriate to have a link to a non-English-language site, such as when an official site is unavailable in English; or when the link is to the subject's text in its original language; or when the site contains visual aids such as maps, diagrams, or tables. Per the guideline on non-English-language sites."

1. This is an official website, and 2. While there is an English official site for Juno, this particular official website is concerned with Juno's release in Japan. I do not believe that the English official website has any information about Juno's release in Japan. WhisperToMe (talk) 13:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Update: I used this source to determine that they sold Juno Bearbricks in Japan. This IS a legitimate EL (as it is being used a source now) and this stuff should go back in. Edit 2: I found an official Facebook Beabrick page about this toy, but it doesn't say as much as the Japanese EL does. (So both sources can be used) - Anyway, my point is that the Japanese Juno EL can be used as a source on Wikipedia, so it should be listed with the EL collection. WhisperToMe (talk) 13:24, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Also Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(links)#Non-English-language_sites and Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English_sources are relevant. WhisperToMe (talk) 13:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Just because we are allowed to do it, doesn't mean we should do it. I'd be inclined to allow the Japanese logo; we're short on images in the article. However, the overwhelming majority of the people reading the article will not speak Japanese. Those who do will be inclined to click on the language link and view the article at the Japanese Wikipedia. So the link adds nothing to the English article. Additionally, since it is a source, it should not also be an EL.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The image completely fails the fair use criteria. The rationale is nonsense (I assume it's a copy-paste job) and says the image's purpose is to illustrate the topic. Is that not what the poster is for? And the poster was globally distributed - the Japanese logo is not relevant to the film as a whole, from a worldwide perspective. If we included the Japanese logo, we'd have as much reason to include every poster used in every country around the world, and I'm sure none would be more valuable than any other. Being "short on images in the article" isn't really justification for non-free content. —97198 (talk) 14:11, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The reason why the Japanese logo alone passes the FU criteria is because it is sufficiently different from the English logo. On Japanese comic articles if the English cover is too similar to the Japanese book cover then the English cover is not included. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I didn't check the image.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• Gotta agree with Wehwalt and 97198; I don't see how the link adds anything of value to the English WP. Let's not ignore this part of the EL policy: "It may be appropriate to have a link to a non-English-language site, such as when an official site is unavailable in English", which is not the case. Another item to take note of: "English-language sources are "strongly preferred", not just "preferred". Dp76764 (talk) 14:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Dp76764, actually it passes that criteria because the English official website does not talk about the film as it was released in Japan. For information about the film that is specific to Japan you have to go to the Japanese website. I said in an above reply, "2. While there is an English official site for Juno, this particular official website is concerned with Juno's release in Japan. I do not believe that the English official website has any information about Juno's release in Japan" so I had already covered that point. As for the statement "If we included the Japanese logo, we'd have as much reason to include every poster used in every country around the world," - I am talking about logos, not posters. For the logos only the Japanese one (that I know of so far) is sufficiently different from the English logo. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

However, it really doesn't matter that the Japanese logo is different from the US one. It is trivial information. As for Juno's release in Japan, unless the film was significantly different in Japan (I mean beyond dubbing or Japanese subtitles), we really don't need to have the reader know, again it is trivia.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:47, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Incidently, why do we care about Juno merchandise? How is that appropriate or relevant in an article I'm sure we'd all like to see go FA one of these days (I'm too busy with Albert Speer to work on this, but it's on deck)--Wehwalt (talk) 15:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

You said: "Incidently, why do we care about Juno merchandise? " - Wehwalt, merchandising is often parts of the marketing and promotion of films, TV shows, and other fictional series. If this is going to be an FA, then by all means it should include marketing and promotion of the film. As you know Japan is known for large amounts of merchandising with various films and TV shows. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:25, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why Juno in Japan is any more significant than any other foreign country (why not France?), and what purpose the logo for said foreign version has any place in a section detailing the perceived rise of teenage pregnancies because of Juno. Let's say, hypothetically, that Juno was controversial in Japan for whatever reason, then I might see a reason for the link/picture.--CyberGhostface (talk) 17:20, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

If we have information about Juno for France, then we add it. Just because we include information about Juno for Japan doesn't mean it is a detriment to everywhere else. BTW I have not found an official site for any OTHER language other than English and Japanese. As for why the Japanese logo would be preferred over, say, the logo used in France... assuming the logo in France is the same as the logo used in the U.S., then having the same logo twice would not make any sense. The only reason the Japanese logo would be included is because the font style is different from the U.S. logo. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:25, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I found more ELs - Or, for that matter, a Juno website which is a portal for websites for the releases in the US, the UK, Australia, and continental Europe. I might add the Australian and British ELs as separate and have the portal for people who wish to view continental European sites. For that matter I found another logo which seems to be in use in the UK, Australia, and continental Europe. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how it benefits the article. There is a fine, but important distinction between being comprehensive and being a random accumulation of information, and I'm thinking that your edits head us towards the latter.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

So, what can I (and we) do to make it more comprehensive? Should I check to see if there are any articles in particular about Juno merchandising? I'm sure there are at least a few. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:50, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

It wouldn't hurt. I just don't feel that selling a souvenir is relevant to the core of this article, and I think we will be told to lose the bear thing when we go to FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:08, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Is there a notability guideline on talking about films' merchandising and advertising? almost-instinct 19:13, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

ps I think we should bear in mind the first lines of WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTLINK. almost-instinct 19:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Not specifically, that I can fine. I'm sure it is a major topic in something like Star Wars, where the merchandise is widely collected. But for Juno, it seems to me to be right now, merely trivial.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:25, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I just added a line about Juno's marketing - According to a USA Today article the way the film was mainly promoted by word-of-mouth. Hopefully we can find more specifics about how the film was promoted. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

In that case, unless a cited source discussing the mechandise in relation to the film's notability crops up, I really can't see why merchandising/websites (both of which are just a form of advertising) are notable enough to be in the article. Frankly this topic strikes me as a good way of everyone wasting a lot of time and energy; I don't think we would like to end up here! almost-instinct 19:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry - As long as we don't edit war, we won't end up on the list. :) WhisperToMe (talk) 20:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

No one's going to edit war here. Edit wars usually happen over emotional issues, and I don't think this qualifies. Anyway, I looked over your edit, Whisper, and I don't see what the first two sentences have to do with the toy issue.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm trying to put information for both marketing and merchandise in the same topic heading. I'll see if I can find a more general statement about the merchandise. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:19, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Could this information be combined with the "Promotion" section earlier in the article? almost-instinct 20:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Seems reasonable.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that works well. - The Hamburger Phones and Bearbricks are very identical promotions. :) WhisperToMe (talk) 02:29, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Still not sure that section will survive in FAC, but I don't intend to sumit it for a couple of months yet.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

"American"

This movie was made by a director from Montreal with leads from Halifax and Brampton and filmed in Vancouver. How is it an "American" film? --Jammoe (talk) 02:56, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Aside from this article, there was also some contention over the film's exclusion from the Canadian Genie Awards - there was never a "full" story given (the Academy claimed the film was actually never submitted), but The Hollywood Reporter did make a good point, that the film was fully financed by two American production companies. This perhaps should be discussed, though, as Jason Reitman said himself, "It's a Canadian director, Canadian stars, Canadian cast, Canadian crew, shot in Canada". —97198 (talk) 03:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Presumably this issue has arisen before with money from one country being spent in another. My guess is that the guideline, if we find it, will say that whoever pays for it gets the credit. But I think our page should mention the anomoly, the quote from Reitman being citeable. almost-instinct 13:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Films are usually categorised by the nationality of the production company. Most movie making money actually comes from German. Canterbury Tail talk 01:52, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Resolved the dispute by putting Canadian-American. You can have your cake and eat it too. Dtaw2001 (talk) 15:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

By the by, "America" is a continent, not a country. Canadians are Americans. So are Mexicans, Peruvians and freaking Brazilians too. "Juno" is therefore, an American film. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.147.224 (talk) 11:12, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Canadians do not consider themselves to be American, I know in Spanish this is different, but in English we consider ourselves North American, and Canadian, but not American. You can argue semantics, but no one identifies with the term here, and in English, or French, the way you are describing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.183.70.15 (talk) 01:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Metacritic goes with "Origin: USA". [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.227.204 (talk) 15:51, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Medium

In the opening of Medium on NBC today, the opening dream sequence shows a parody of Juno. So maybe someone could start a popular culture section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.194.189.207 (talk) 03:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

• No, that's mostly non-notable trivia. DP76764 (Talk) 03:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

"Popular culture" sections generally become dumping grounds for people to post whatever minute they can find to the subject in television and video games and it just becomes a mess.--CyberGhostface (talk) 17:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

citations needed

I find at least FIVE citations needed in the opening summary: "receiving a standing ovation" "soundtrack...was the first #1 since Dreamgirls" "...earned back it's initial budget..." "gone on to earn 35 times that amount" ...and the whole last sentence. Would somebody please add citations or ^{[citation needed]} ? Thanks. 207.237.33.36 (talk) 05:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I haven't scrutinised them, but most if not all of these examples are referenced later in the article. You might want to read WP:LEADCITE - it's not necessary to cite information that is cited later in the main body of the article. —97198 (talk) 05:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

NPOV

The following sentence needs to be altered:

"Other critics labeled Juno as feminist because of its atypical portrayal of Juno as a confident and intelligent teenage girl."

It implies that people against feminism do not believe in the existence of "confident and intelligent" teenage girls. The article (as currently written) also quotes an antifeminist who states: "(the move theme) isn't love, romance, or respect for life, but the triumph of feminist ideology, i.e., the irrelevancy of men, especially fathers."

Instead of painting (one might say straw-manning) the argument of antifeminists as being somehow against the existence of intelligence and confidence in teenage girls, it should reflect their views as stated. I'm unable to edit it, someone please fix it with a neutral stratement. Editeverything142 (talk) 12:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

It is NPOV; it is the critics who are displaying a point of view. We are merely stating their views, appropriately attributed. Thank you for the thought.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:59, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect, did you read my comment? Of course the critics are attributed - I acknowledged as such explicitly in my comment. Indeed, my only request is that the sentence summarizing the criticisms actually reflect the criticisms being used in the article. The antifeminist quoted was very clear that her reasons for criticizing the movie as feminist stemmed from its portrayal of men. At no point did the intellectual stature or confidence of teenage girls enter her criticism or any other criticisms of the film given in the article. And frankly, it is absurd to label anyone as being against confidence and intelligence unless they explicitly say so.

So please, either remove the sentence, or change it so that it reflects the opinions it is supposed to summarize. Editeverything142 (talk) 10:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Opening title sequence

Two comments about some minor details, but I don't have permission to change it yet: 1. "A cartoonized Juno" is not accurate. The Juno character is stylized through the use of animation techniques. Therefore, "animated" would be a better describe the visuals. "Cartoonized" suggests a level of abstraction relating the animation to cartoons, which is not at all the case in this title sequence. 2. This paragraph has quotes taken from a website called 'Forget the Film, Watch the Titles'. I am the editor of this website and the author of the interview that is quoted here. The link is outdated. It still redirects, but please replace it. The current URL for this article is: http://www.watchthetitles.com/articles/0069-Juno 3. Remco Vlaanderen is the author of this article. Not Colin Thomas. I don't know who Colin Thomas is, he is not and was never associated with this website. 4. The official title of the site is 'Forget the Film, Watch the Titles,' please not the capitalization. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Remcovlaanderen (talk • contribs) 18:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Cast List

Can someone add a cast/character list to this page? It seems pretty easy to add, and convenient for viewers. I wanted to find out the name of the actor who played Juno's father, and had to follow the link to imdb to find it. I would use imdb as a reference and do this myself, if the article wasn't locked. If you feel the mention of actors/actresses in the opening paragraphs is sufficient, then please just say so. Sumutherbudy (talk) 17:11, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

He's already listed in the infobox, and other than that, imdb would be the proper place to look for that info. DP76764 (Talk) 17:39, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

IMDB is not a reliable source under our rules.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, his name is listed in the infobox, but if simply mentions he's one of the actors, and doesn't say what character anybody plays. None of the actors are paired with their characters on the wiki page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumutherbudy (talk • contribs) 07:03, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Possible FAC?

Does anyone (besides me) think this article should be nominated on WP:FAC? --Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 22:21, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd ask for a WP:PR peer review first. No one has touched this article much in two years.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:22, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Peer review listed. --Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 23:49, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry, I forgot to watch it. I will review it over the next couple of days and see where I can help.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:59, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Daisy Dukes?

Why is there a picture of the lead guy in his Daisy Dukes? He only wore them things when he ran, and it wasn't all the time so why show that nasty stuff as the picture on the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.0.32.111 (talk) 09:37, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

What are you talking about? That's the poster, it's pretty much standard for every film article.--CyberGhostface (talk) 04:50, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

We have no free images of the cast that I am aware of. It is standard practice to use a fair use image of the poster in the infobox. I do not believe showing a teenage boy (actually, I believe the actor was some years older) in T shirt and shorts is particularly nasty.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:33, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, it's a perfectly reasonably picture. Also, FYI to the OP, "Daisy Dukes" are pretty much exclusively defined as denim shorts. DP76764 (Talk) 14:50, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Japanese source

For the English-language Wikipedia, when quoting a source in a different language, we must provide both the original-language quotation and an English translation. Please see WP:NOENG. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:34, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I doubt if the editor who put it there is presently active in the article. Is it something you can fix? Please feel free to be bold, as they say.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:55, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't speak Japanese, but my experience with this, with other languages, is that someone generally comes along who will. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:39, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation

This article isn't editable, so I'll post this here and hope someone can fix it. The article needs the following at the top:

This page is about the 2007 film. For other uses, see Juno.

(signed by IP, 1/31/2012)

That's been done now. Thank you for your contribution.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:20, 31 January 2012 (UTC)