Talk:Matt Damon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Good article Matt Damon has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
September 20, 2007 Good article nominee Listed
June 6, 2008 Peer review Reviewed
October 4, 2014 Good article reassessment Kept
Current status: Good article

Missing Courage Under File under Filmography[edit]

Courage Under File in 1996 is missing from his Filmography. Tony (talk) 06:42, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I also noticed that the Filography is missing Saving Private Ryan (1998) CatGrass (talk) 05:01, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Inside Job[edit]

There is no mention of Matt Damon's narration of the Academy Award Winning documentary, Inside Job. I believe this should be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.233.249.85 (talk) 23:17, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

GA Reassessment[edit]

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Matt Damon/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.


Talk page[edit]

I'm following up on the request to reassess the Matt Damon article... and I'm going to start with comments on the talk page that are said to be wrong or in error first:

  • alma mater - per Merriam Webster, means "a school, college, or university at which one has studied and, usually, from which one has graduated." So, Harvard University stays.
  • Question regarding the validity of: "Mr. Speca always seemed to trust Ben [Affleck] with the biggest roles and longest speeches." Verified, the full quote is archived.
  • There were some other corrections and requests for additions that have been taken care of - and I noted the appropriate section in the archive. Other requests for additions that were two or more years old were just archived.

If there is concern, though, about the list of requests for additions that have not been made, I can type up a list and repost it here (without having to weed through a number of postings). If I don't hear, though, I'll assume "archived" is ok.--CaroleHenson (talk) 13:50, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Article review[edit]

Overview[edit]

There are a number of ways in which the article has adapted well as Damon's life has advanced professionally and personally since the GA review version in 2008. The section break-down is particularly good, like breaking out the phases of his acting career from that of a producer -- breaking out his philanthropic career from his personal life -- and creating an "In the media" section. Much of the content is well-written with inline citations to reliable sources, but there is some uncited content and some content has citations to non-reliable sources. There are some areas for improvement in the content, too.

Content[edit]

  • Intro -- This section is too long and doesn't seem to be a good summary of his personal life, philanthropic endeavors and career pursuits. It might benefit by being rewritten as a summary of his life thus far, without a lot of detail (e.g., Good Will Hunting awards, listing a lot of movies, etc.) They aren't "Good articles", but Paul Newman, Robert Redford, or Cary Grant are nice examples of a summary style.
  • Sections - there are some opportunities to be more concise and clear. Two sections seem to pop out the most: "Early life" and "In the media". My first thought is: how to word this more like a summary with an encyclopedic tone - and put detail that falls outside the summary into notes or perhaps remove entirely.
    • Reworded Early life and put some of the information in "notes" - I'm not seeing any opportunities there to reduce prose, but if someone has an idea, that would be great. For now, I'll mark it  Done--CaroleHenson (talk) 18:21, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
    • I reworded the "Jimmy Kimmel" portion of "In the media", but I think it could probably be reduced more.
      • I moved some of the info into notes and it's much shorter now. Done--CaroleHenson (talk) 19:46, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Without too much detail -- as Damon's career has advanced, the need to go into a lot of detail becomes less important, but there is still a lot of detail (e.g., a film he tried out for but didn't get, etc.). Specifically the aim is to be: Broad in its coverage, by addressing the main aspects of the topic and stay focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
    • The number of characters has only dropped about 2,000 characters from this version, but since I've added a number of citations - and moved some info into notes, I am guessing that readable prose within the body of the article reduced more than that.
    • Also, I didn't really remove any detail - except where I moved some detail from the intro into the body of the article. So, I'll go back and look for potential opportunities.
      • I removed a little more detail... but I think it reads ok now. It went from 20283 characters (3351 words) "readable prose size" ---> 15350 characters (2508 words) "readable prose size", which makes it about 75% of what it had been - so that should be good for now. Done--CaroleHenson (talk) 19:46, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Clear and concise prose -- the article will better come across as "well-written" if there is a more unified voice and connective flow of the information. For instance, read any paragraph in the "Kimmel and Damon" section, followed by a few sentences of "Humanitarian work", which has an encyclopedic tone.
    • I likely need a good read-through for copy edits, but I think it has a more consistent tone throughout now.
  • Related to the amount of detail and being concise -- it's nice to have quotes, but they are sometimes used unnecessarily. It would be nice to pare them down to the ones that provide the greatest insight. In some cases, the points can be summarized. This sentence might be summarized, perhaps with other points in the section about how he felt as a child: "As a lonely adolescent, Damon has described feeling 'such pain in wanting to belong somewhere and not belonging'.[18]
    • The quotes have just been trimmed a little. I'll look at that, too. (Sorry if these comments seem to be "talking to myself", but it helps me go back for a second look).--CaroleHenson (talk) 18:21, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
      • the quotes that remain seem to help the story and don't overwhelm the article. Done--CaroleHenson (talk) 19:46, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Sources[edit]

  • Sources -- there are some great sources, like New York Times, Time, etc. that are established news sources, etc. and there are some that I'll need to look at more closely, but some words that pop out are "facebook", "aintitcool". I'll go through the article and tag where citations are needed -- or better sources are needed.
  • Copyright violations / close paraphrasing - I am not sure about that yet. Once the article is trimmed down, with reliable sources, that will be easier to tackle.
    • I didn't really run across issues when I looked at sources. I'm calling this  Done--CaroleHenson (talk) 18:22, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

General comments[edit]

In it's current state, it doesn't seem to pass GA article criteria regarding verifiable, reliable sources; "clear and concise prose"; and "without going into unnecessary detail". And again, I don't know yet about copyright violations.

Because there is a lot that is well-written with good sources, I don't think it will take a lot of work to get it into better shape. I am happy to help with editing and clarifying opportunities for improvement. Is anyone else willing to help out? Or, did you just want the input?--CaroleHenson (talk) 13:48, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Editing[edit]

It's been pretty quiet on the talk page, so - unless someone gives me another preference -- I'll move ahead using a Matt Damon page in my user space to perform copy edits and improve citations. I was going to start with "Early life" first.

Would anyone like to discuss potential changes first, or wait til I have an updated draft in workspace?

Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:43, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Early life[edit]

I am not finding anything from a reliable source (HighBeam, books, web) that says that Matt Damon is of Scottish, English, Swedish and Finnish heritage. Robert Battle has published four or so genealogy books, but I have no idea whether Damon is in any of them.

This statement: "but had a "terrifying" first two years due to his short stature.[18)" has to be totally bogus. First, the reference says nothing about Damon's height and second, he's 5'10". That ain't short. 73.221.170.109 (talk) 01:35, 25 January 2016 (UTC)M. Schuyler

His father is of Scottish and English ancestry, while his mother is of Finnish and Swedish descent.<ref name="wargs1">{{cite web|url=http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~battle/celeb/damon.htm |title="Matt Damon" by Robert Battle genealogist, posted to Rootsweb |publisher=Freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com |accessdate=2014-08-13}}</ref>{{better source|reason=personal user page of genealogical info (2 troubling issues), not a reliable source|date=October 2014}}

The source provided comes from an uncited personal genealogy page with a link to a message forum to an email. i.e., not a reliable source.

Is there a reliable newspaper article, magazine article or book that has this information that I'm missing? A quote from Damon in an article would be golden, for instance!--CaroleHenson (talk) 21:01, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I have found a couple of links: English, Finnish and Scottish and Finnish.--CaroleHenson (talk) 15:43, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, and Swedish. So, I've added the heritages.  Done--CaroleHenson (talk) 15:55, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Early years: 1988–1996[edit]

  • This does not seem to be an important point: "In 1996, he auditioned for a small role in Cutthroat Island, but was turned away." Am I missing something?--CaroleHenson (talk) 04:41, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Conclusion[edit]

There are a number of talented contributors to the article that may be able to finesse some of my edits, but I think it now passes the open GA article criteria issues regarding verifiable, reliable sources; "clear and concise prose"; and "without going into unnecessary detail".--CaroleHenson (talk) 19:51, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you to all who helped improve the article to maintain the GA status. I was on vacation and would have liked to help. It's definitely come a long way since I first initially brought it up to GA, so thank you again for your hard work in further improving the article! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talkcontrib) 04:56, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Content removed[edit]

@Mad Hatter:I'm not sure that I understand the edits in this revision where there were chunks of text removed. There was no edit summary - so I'm assumed that it may have been either a good-faith error - or perhaps vandalism.

It looked like you wanted to move an image down into the awards section, so I took are of that, but made it a gallery so it doesn't "sandwich" the text MOS: Images.

I returned it but will look over the edits to see if there are corrections, etc. Any feedback in the meantime, though, is helpful!--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:25, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

@Mad Hatter: Per your comment on my talk page: Great! I worked on the GA Reassessment, and anything that will make the article better is good. I explained why I reverted above - and certainly don't want to enter into an edit war, which is why I started the dialogue here to better understand what's going on. As an FYI, I've been pretty firmly entrenched in the article for several days.--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:29, 5 October 2014 (UTC)


@CaroleHenson: Sorry, I wanted it to move it down, that I forgot it, ultimately :). I also wanted to move the footprints at the awards section. Thanks for fixing it up. Didn't want to look as vandalism. As you may have noticed, my edits before were to try to fix the sections and the years in them. Thanks for fixing my work! Thanks for contributing to it! The Mad Hatter (talk)

@Mad Hatter: Cool! Thanks for catching the need to tweak placement of the cameo's and time frames. I wanted to add a couple of links, but I'm done now. Going back to the awards page. --CaroleHenson (talk) 17:47, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson: Hey, I made another edit, because the lines of commercially and critically successful films are kind of overlapping into one another. Also felt that Green Zone might also be considered a flop. Look it up, don't wanna stand out as a deletor, but some of it really needs a work Carole. Respect: The Mad Hatter (talk)

@CaroleHenson: Hello Carole, I made another edit. Since his "Early life" and "Early years" in acting are repeating each other in the Harvard last section, since that are his debut years in acting, decided to be bold and move them downwards, so that there is no overlapping. Look again at the intro section, I still think it neeeds polishing and tweaking. All the best: The Mad Hatter (talk)

@Mad Hatter:
Thanks for resolving the Harvard University info - much better! And the intro looks good, too! My point was just to provide examples - following a summary style approach, so I'm not at all surprised that there are other examples of successful or unsuccessful films. But, you've kept the summary style and improved on it - so kudos to you!
I don't know if you saw much conclusion to the GAR, "There are a number of talented contributors to the article that may be able to finesse some of my edits, but I think it now..." - so yes, your edits are appreciated!--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:37, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Uncited content[edit]

Are there reliable, secondary sources for this information?

Damon is reportedly in talks to star in a biopic of Whitey Bulger, as well as an action comedy from director Ben Affleck reportedly co-starring Denzel Washington, Christian Bale, Robert Downey Jr., Amy Adams, Jennifer Lawrence, Scarlett Johansson, Tom Hardy, Jeremy Renner, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, and Mila Kunis.
Damon will also appear in 2015's Ridley Scott film The Martian and the new Bourne film from Paul Greengrass.

Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:27, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Notability[edit]

How notable is it that he attended this game - an addition made by User:50.143.155.35?

Damon is also a fan of the Santa Cruz Derby Girls, a roller derby team based in Santa Cruz, California, and has been photographed at several of their public games over the past few years.[1]. One of their skaters, Sharon D. Payne (or Eileen Jacinto Hill off the track) is a college friend of Damon's wife.

I get that there's an interest and that he's come to more than one game, but what would this article look like if all of his interests were recorded? So, that's why I'm asking what makes this more notable than other interest he may have (partial ownership, other)?--CaroleHenson (talk) 21:26, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^ York, Jessica (June 1, 2014). "Actor Matt Damon makes appearance at Santa Cruz Derby Girls bout". Santa Cruz Sentinel. Retrieved October 15, 2014. 

What Up,Cuz?[edit]

According the material presented to Ben Affleck in Season 2,episode 4 of "Finding Your Roots." Damon and Affleck are Tenth Cousins,once removed. Sochwa (talk) 19:41, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Yep, it's in a note right now. Being a 10th cousin is not particularly notable, but I can move it out of the note and into the body of the article.--CaroleHenson (talk) 21:23, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Filmography section[edit]

Having select films that an actor is known for in the filmography section is pretty common when there is another page for their credits. See George Clooney, Robin Williams, Robert Downey Jr. or look at Julianne Moore for a non-list version. It's better than having the section blank with just the redirect to the filmography page. LADY LOTUSTALK 18:50, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

The Julianne Moore example is a good one, because there is criteria for what films are identified in the main article section - ones that won her awards or earned her the most money. It's also nice that it's a summary. Otherwise, like the Robin Williams article, it's a long list without context. What would you select as the criteria for the ones that are included in the main article to avoid replication of the information the filmography article (e.g., prevent people from jumping on the bandwagon and adding films to the list indiscriminately)?
Love your signature, cool!--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:03, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Yea, the Robin Williams one is a bit much, I don't think every single film needs to be mentioned. I think it Damon's situation, the films that have got him a lot of recognition or awards could be worded the way Moore's is, in a "lead" type style. I just hate to see that section blank.
lol thanks LADY LOTUSTALK 20:29, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Sounds good.--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:54, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Matt Damon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • 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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:51, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Damon's "keep your sexuality to yourself" comments[edit]

C'omn, you knew someone was going to bring up this matter sooner or later as far as this article goes. As we know, Damon's "People shouldn't know anything about your sexuality." comment, which tied into his view on gay actors coming out, has gotten a lot of media attention, as seen here, here, here and here. Having checked this article's edit history to see what was added at the time of the media attention, I'm surprised to see that nothing has been added or reverted on this matter yet (unless I missed some random IP additions, where they added a poor mention of it). I wouldn't feel that this topic needs addressing in this article, if it weren't for the fact that it sparked a cultural debate, with even Ellen Page weighing in on it. So I definitely think that a paragraph or two about this should go in the "In the media" section. Flyer22 (talk) 08:38, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay, in the absence of any valid objections, I will add content on this matter to the "In the media" section in a few days; I will keep the WP:Neutral policy, including its WP:Due weight section, in mind when doing so. Flyer22 (talk) 21:26, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Flyer22. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:07, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Jason Bourne/David Webb[edit]

@Bovineboy2008 @Checkingfax Thank you for reviewing my edit, but I would like to know your reason for reverting it. The character's actual name is David Webb and one of the character's major goals in the first film is to learn who he is. Thank you. -- SLV100 (talk) 07:45, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi SLV100. Because Damon is credited as Bourne, not as Webb. Also, you were set up because another editor was cocking around with the casing of the infobox name. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 07:58, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
@Checkingfax Thank you for your response. In the film series, Damon has been credited as "Bourne", "Jason Bourne", and "Jason Bourne/David Webb". It seems the latter covers all three. Thank you. -- SLV100 (talk) 08:09, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi SLV100. Which one credited Damon as Webb? Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 09:37, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
@Checkingfax If I'm not mistaken Supremacy and Ultimatum. Thank you. -- SLV100 (talk) 09:48, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi SLV100. I am only tasked as a Pending Changes Reviewer with thwarting vandalism so if you put it back up and I see it I will accept it. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 10:22, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Relationship history[edit]

Do we have to keep a record of his romantic relationships here? They aren't significant enough to be mentioned. As you can see there's no mention of Damon on Minnie Driver and Winona Ryder's articles. It was removed by other users because no significance was indicated. I think we should do the same thing here, but instead of removing the material I decided to discuss it first. Keivan.fTalk 03:04, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm in favour of getting rid of them. I find relationship histories usually aren't important enough for an article. My two cents. Willondon (talk) 23:02, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Well, it seems that no one opposes what I said. Keivan.fTalk 22:25, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Matt Damon. 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:

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

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • 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) 14:43, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

#exposed[edit]

okay so theres this fairly popular podcast made by jennamarbles (called the jenna julien podcast) that a) has a long-running joke about damon's movie stuck on you being an Incredible cinematographic masterpiece and b) now has a conspiracy theory about damon being exposed as 14 years old. i just feel as if this article about him should address these jokes, or at least that he has been #exposed as today being his 14th birthday Breezeham (talk) 03:49, 3 October 2017 (UTC) i hate myself so much for this lo siento mucho Breezeham (talk) 03:54, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Children[edit]

In his statement about Harvey Weinstein, Damon referred to himself as the "father of four daughters." Since he obviously acknowledges his stepdaughter's existence, shouldn't his page? ("Children = 4 (including one stepchild)")

Shouldn't the opening paragraph also be modified from "they have three daughters together" to something like "they have four daughters together, (including a daughter from Luciana's previous marraige)" or something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.169.34.6 (talk) 16:23, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Matt Damon. 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:

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

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • 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) 09:47, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Controversy update[edit]

Dec 18, 2017 Matt Damon's interview with ABC news, the resultant backlash should be added. [1] There's been quite a response on twitter, both good and bad. AspiringCheetah (talk) 04:50, 22 December 2017 (UTC)AspiringCheetah

References

Controversy section[edit]

Some new edits have been made recently, which were not really written from a neutral point of view and littered with grammar and spelling errors. I did some copyediting and consolidation, and removed some of the editorial and POV claims supported by low-quality sources. Gene2010 (talk) 07:27, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 January 2018[edit]

The "Controversy" section should be changed to "Controversies" because there's more than one.

Also, if you're going to be fair to women then you have to be fair to visible minorities too and add this incident in 2015 to Damon's controversies:

When independent African-American filmmaker, Effie Brown, suggested that a white woman and a Vietnamese-American man co-direct a proposed film, Damon interrupted the Brown to explain to her what diversity means in Hollywood saying "When we’re talking about diversity you do it in the casting of the film not in the casting of the show." Damon alleges his words were taken out of context on a show that he was executive producer and then apologised.[1][2][3] 5.32.55.154 (talk) 04:19, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

References

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Controversy can be used as a collective singular noun, as it appears to be here. The requested additions appear to be about a short-lived and low-impact event form over two years ago and adding this event to a section that already has been tagged for undue weight issues is not within the scope of an edit request. Please open a separate discussion about the Controversy section and the proper items to include so that a consensus among interested editors can be formed. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:20, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 January 2018[edit]

Early lif and education to Early Life and education Kdizzle98 (talk) 09:28, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Change section title in contents and at the top of section from "Early lif and education" to "Early life and education". Mcrooney (talk) 15:21, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Done Thank you both for catching that. —C.Fred (talk) 15:24, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 February 2018 for updating filmography[edit]

Please update 'Selected filmography' tab to add new movie: Downsizing (2018) [Reference Link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1389072/] Rcmola (talk) 11:48, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: It's listed as "Selected filmography" for a reason. The movie Downsizing is mentioned on Matt Damon filmography. Nihlus 21:20, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Matt Damon[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Matt Damon's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "marriage":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT 20:47, 23 May 2018 (UTC)