Talk:Peter Dinklage

Found a clear mistake underneath Peter Dinklage's picture

I would change it myself, but this is listed as a "good article". Right now, it lists his height as 5'9". But both sources (http://www.bbc.co.uk/films/2004/03/12/peter_dinklage_the_station_agent_interview.shtml and https://web.archive.org/web/20140813023823/https://www.sfgate.com/movies/article/Station-actor-draws-big-attention-Peter-2553746.php) list his height as 4'5". Elsewhere in the article, it says 4'5" is his height. Clearly this is a mistake! 2604:2D80:5504:F100:70D4:4A50:DB38:3A46 (talk) 00:42, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Disney

There are a few things wrong with the added 'controversy' section

• "controversy" sections are discouraged. Far better to include the content either within the rest of the article, where appropriate, or name the section neutrally.
• the Daily Mail and "The Alteran" are not reliable sources. This is particularly important with content that is criticizing someone.
• Italian sources are unhelpful to most readers on the English language Wikipedia. Can English ones be found?
• The added text appears to include original research and speculation about what Dinklage "apparently" doesn't understand. Where is this in the sources?
• The text notes what unidentified "people and fans" said. Who are these people? Unattributed their opinion is not notable.

Please don't re-add this content until these issues are addressed. Thanks. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 13:43, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

This section has been re-added with more original research, WP:SOAPBOX material and potential WP:BLP violations by a second anonymous IP address account with no previous edits. Dinklage made one spontaneous comment on a podcast and now it deserves an entire section on his Wikipedia page because he stated that miners live in a cave rather than work there? WP:UNDUE Kire1975 (talk) 23:28, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I suspect the additions are by the same IP editor, who does not have a static IP. As noted, they have still not addressed most of the issues I noted above. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 10:29, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I tried to rewrite the section, even modified it and removed the source considered deprecated on English Wikipedia's list but despite this it keeps getting removed, completely. What can I do? This is the last version before being eliminated, and as you can see there's no speculation or non-neutral sounding tone nor sources on the current "deprecated" list (and Alteran is not among those, so I don't understand what makes it unreliable and how could I know nor why instead of removing all the content you didn't remove just that source, along with the following added), just facts:

"Following actor Peter Dinklage's criticism of the "stereotypical depiction of dwarfs", Disney announced that the live-action film adaptation of the animated film Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs will replace the titular Dwarf characters with "magical creatures" and that the dwarf actors would be discarded in favor of a voice cast for the aforementioned characters. A thing to be noticed is the difference between humans in real life suffering from dwarfism and Dwarfs as mythical and fantastical creatures from European fantasy, folklore and mythology like in the case of both the film and the fairytale Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs and other fantasy and epic-fantasy works. Dinklage even wrongly stated that Snow White's Dwarves live in a "cavern" instead of a cottage in the forest. This move has been criticized by people and fans who accused Dinklage (and later Disney) of "woke" hypocrisy and virtue signalling, criticizing his words and the resulting Disney's response for being severely harmful to the "little people community," including potential actors for the roles of the Dwarfs who blamed and denounced Dinklage as a "selfish...trying to get roles away" and not representing said community."— Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.36.80.46 (talk)

• Assertion of "woke criticism" or "virtue signaling" from random comic book blogs hardly shows NPOV. Even then, this section hardly adds anything to the article that the two sentences under the /*Dwarfism*/ subsection hasn't already covered. — BriefEdits (talk) 04:52, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

• Those "assertions" are simply words and accusations from the people, fans and dwarf actors who criticized Dinklage and you can't call the sources "random" just because you don't agree or because they report what other official sources reported. If you think the sources aren't reliable (and I don't see why, and not only because they're not in the "deprecated" list of English Wikipedia and I don't see why they should be), just remove them and not everything else. I simply report what people said and how they reacted, that's why the commas. And it's not material to be added in the "Dwarfism" section, it takes a separate and distinct section. And speaking about the dwarf actors (and this is the most important part and it's very unfair denying to report their own voice in this topic) and commas, the phrases between commas are simply their own statements and words exacty how they were said, there's no assumption or speculation here, only reporting facts and exact words for what they are or were. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.68.49.60 (talk)

• The Alteran article that is the primary source of these "quotes" about wokeness etc. is WP:USERGENERATED. The IP user was warned about this and chose to include it in the new submission anyway. FYI. Kire1975 (talk) 01:47, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

• I don't recall The Alteran is a deprecated source (and give me a reason why should be) and certainly it's not even the only one that quotes that among the others. I know Daily Mail is one of the deprecated ones, that's why I removed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.82.185.222 (talk)

• Please sign and indent your comments for readability. You can use : to indent, * to bullet point, and four ~ to sign your name. Thanks. Furthermore, a deprecated source is a type of source that is highly discouraged, if not blacklisted. A source that isn't deprecated doesn't mean that it's reliable. In this case, just because <insert internet blog> wrote about a certain topic doesn't mean that it is good enough to warrant inclusion nor suggest that it is neutral or reliable. (See WP:USERGENERATED or WP:RS for further details) — BriefEdits (talk) 03:19, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

• How do I know a source is objectively reliable, and how do I know it's not considered reliable and deleted because of a bias? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.46.89.30 (talk) 14:50, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

• This IP user's persistent questions are not in good faith. If this continues, might I suggest one or more of the remedies on WP:SEALION? Kire1975 (talk) 03:14, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

• What do you mean "not in good faith"? I try to understand and to do better. If I ask if I'm running into possible potential bias and I notice some incoherence because I don't want to risk to be limited or restricted then I'm not in good faith and not simply a concerned user or editor? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.18.128.46 (talk) 00:32, 16 February 2022 (UTC)