Jump to content

Talk:Jennifer Lawrence

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Flyer22 Frozen (talk | contribs) at 00:43, 2 January 2016 (→‎How best to include the material?: Started the WP:RfC for wider input.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The Amazing Spider-Man 2

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

Hunger Games

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 9 November 2015

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

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

Scandal

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

I'd say it's a notable event, although yes it possibly had undue weight. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:17, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I will let a discussion proceed to determine what should be included if anything. Looking through the archives, this hasn't been discussed recently. Please keep it out until we get a fresh consensus. Jehochman Talk 13:22, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I believe mentioning about it is necessary due to the significant coverage of the event; however, it doesn't have to be an extremely detailed overview. We have 2014 celebrity photo hack for that. Noting that she was affected by the hack would be sufficient. -- Chamith (talk) 13:46, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it would be best to have a short sentence stating that she was a victim of this incident and link it. Anybody who wants details can read that article and get the full story in context. Jehochman Talk 13:58, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds right to me. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:11, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

It definitely needs to be covered, by a single sentence probably. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:03, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I alerted the aforementioned pages here, here and here. What I like about the addition that Jehochman removed is that it notes what happened, is clear that the images were never meant to be public (despite some people who think that these leaks are done intentionally by celebrities), and that it cited Lawrence's feelings on the matter, an excerpt from her Vanity Fair interview. It is a small paragraph on the topic, and is very much WP:Due. This is why I disagree with a one-sentence addition. Not to mention that, per what MOS:Paragraphs states, I dislike one-sentence paragraphs. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:15, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was simply suggesting it could be covered briefly, not that it should be in a single-sentence paragraph. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:17, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see, but my point is that it was already covered briefly. The aforementioned paragraph is small. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:21, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I understand what you just said, but I think it's all about the fact it was already covered. We don't need to expand on all of these tabloid exposures. Would Britannica? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:23, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I was pretty clear that the aforementioned paragraph is fine and is encyclopedic (in fact, I was very clear with my "20:15, 28 December 2015 (UTC)" post above); if I somehow wasn't, that is exactly what I meant. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:40, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: There had been a typo in my comment before I fixed it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:40, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that she was a crime victim could be noted, with a link to the article about the crime. It is fully explained there. No reason to provide same full explanation here. It would give this tiny little piece of her life excessive attention. I doubt she would like this, and the whole idea of BLP is that we are sensitive to the subjects of Wikipedia articles. "Lawrence was among hundreds of victims in the 2014 celebrity photo hack." That's all we need say about it. This sentence can be added to any of the relevant paragraphs. There's a whole lot more to her life than this. It shouldn't get more attention than it is proportionally due. Jehochman Talk 21:41, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with you, per my "20:15, 28 December 2015 (UTC)" comment above and per WP:Summary style. The way you are supposedly enforcing WP:BLP here makes no sense to me; and I state that as someone who commonly enforces WP:BLP. Lawrence specifically commented on this photo leak mess because she wanted people to know how she feels about it; stating that she wouldn't like us including her commentary on it is at odds with the fact that the commentary exists, and is pure speculation. In my opinion, you should be reverted. And if you block someone for reverting you, that person should be immediately unblocked. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:40, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Flyer22; it needs to be covered. Although it is contentious, it is anything but poorly-sourced, and therefore does not qualify for the kind of WP:BLP enforcement you are suggesting. It just makes no sense. Elizium23 (talk) 00:27, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree with Flyer22. It might be possible to tighten it up a tad, but in truth I don't have a problem with what was there before. I don't believe there is a WP:WEIGHT issue because it was widely reported at the time. Yes, we have an article to cover the hack itself but this paragraph covers Lawrence's own reaction to it, her perspective. Looking at that section it is probably the least trivial thing in it. Betty Logan (talk) 19:06, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it needs to be covered, but let's keep it brief. We aren't a tabloid. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 06:58, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

I'd be fine with that; it's just the right amount of detail, although I like including the part I added about any member of her family or friends who might have also looked at the pictures; she was pulling no punches. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:07, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I do not agree with this proposal. Too much content for a very minor piece of the subject's life. I agree to maximum one sentence with a link to the relevant article. Anybody who wants more detail can click. Her commentary is already in the target article. I am pretty sure she wishes that this never happened. We should not indulge those who continue to host these images online in order to make money from advertising placed on the pages. She was a victim of a hacking attack. That's enough. We don't need to delve into the salacious details here. Our goal should be to maximize the dignity of the subject. This incident is tabloid rubbish and does not required detailed analysis and commentary. Jehochman Talk 21:02, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that the gist of WP:DUE is not about importance, but coverage. That is, it is not for editors to decide how much space to give a certain story based on our impression of the impact or relevance to the topic, but rather that we should accurately represent the level of coverage by WP:RS. More coverage equals more weight. This episode in Lawrence's life is extremely well-known and widely covered. There are tons of WP:RS writing about it that we can point to in order to justify weight of coverage in this article. I think that attempting to minimize it to a microscopic level is unfair to readers and unfair to Lawrence, when the vast majority of this article is glowing praise and positive press, whereas she is a public figure who has led a public life with its concomitant share of negative and unflattering episodes. WP:BLP isn't about protecting our idols from unflattering stories, not when those stories are well-sourced and well-documented in the public record. Elizium23 (talk) 21:08, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Jehochman, how is that proposal too much detail? It briefly describes exactly what happened, and briefly relays Lawrence's relevant feelings on the matter; like Betty Logan stated above, "Yes, we have an article to cover the hack itself but this paragraph covers Lawrence's own reaction to it, her perspective. Looking at that section it is probably the least trivial thing in it." I've been clear that your rationale on this matter makes no sense to me. And WP:Consensus is now for inclusion. If we have to take the matter to a WP:RfC to decide on just what wording should be included because you want us to barely state anything about Lawrence being a victim of the photo leaks in the place where it's most relevant -- the Jennifer Lawrence Wikipedia article -- then I suppose that's what we will have to do. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:10, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer that we don't mention it at all. She's not notable as a crime victim. She's notable as an actress. This is a tabloid sideshow that should get probably less than 1% of the words in this article. Jehochman Talk 21:18, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neglecting to cover a hugely significant incident in a notable person's life, an incident that the notable person commented on in a very significant way, is not how good Wikipedia articles are written. We shouldn't leave readers to find out about this matter by stumbling upon the 2014 celebrity photo hack article. Elizium23 is on-target with the "21:08, 30 December 2015 (UTC)" post above. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:26, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(ed) I feel like we're getting more personal than on the road of reaching consensus. I would like to say I completely agree with Flyer22 Reborn. Jennifer was unfortunately apart of a big scandal that hit 2015 and it unfortunately got a lot of people's attention. Whether it's a tabloid media circus or not, she was apart of it and even commented on it. That is highly notable. Secondly, Joechman (sp?), you make it seem as if your opinion is more valuable. I'm sorry, but that is what I sense. And I also agree that enforcing blocks if we revert you is poor conduct. Reverting you on that edit doesn't define it as vandalism. I support the mention of the hack. The way it was was perfectly fine. All we had was, if I remember, 3 three sentences. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 21:36, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Folks, BLP cannot be overridden by the local consensus of half a dozen editors. My concern is that we are taking the biography of an accomplished actress, and using it to advertise the fact that her sensitive data was hacked and released for all to see. We should not add to her problem. This drew a lot of tabloid attention in 2014. Is it something people will remember 10, or 20, years from now? Notability is permanent. We should write the article with a long view, not with excessive emphasis on recent and salacious events. As for blocks, I'm not going to block anybody who reviews or joins a substantial discussion and then makes a thoughtful edit based on that discussion. That warning was for drive by reverts where no consideration to the discussion was given. Jehochman Talk 22:31, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The way you are enforcing WP:BLP in this case is incorrect; we've already been over this above. This is not a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS violation matter. Furthermore, the 2014 celebrity photo hack is not simply tabloid fodder, which is exactly why we have a Wikipedia article on it. It also received respectable media attention, and, considering what it's about, that respectable media attention was valid; that media attention entails Lawrence feeling so strongly about the photo leak that it led her to seek legal action and to call the photo leak "a sex crime" and "a sexual violation", and to add, "Anybody who looked at those pictures, you're perpetuating a sexual offense. You should cower with shame." It was important enough to her, and it is important enough for this article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:53, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Flyer here. We shouldn't go into salacious details, but nor should we ignore the incident, the coverage of which seemed to feature Lawrence disproportionately. The two sentences above seem reasonable to me. We state it happened, we give Lawrence's view on it, we move on to other items. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:14, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to ask Jehochman which section of WP:BLP he intends to use to block violators. I cannot find a section which allows us to suppress well-sourced negative information about celebrities. Elizium23 (talk) 01:11, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have reinstated some of the prose as this is not BLP violating material. It was well sourced (more can be provided after even a tiny googling if necessary) and does not constitute 'negative' infomation about the subject. Where someone is a victim of a crime, rarely is saying they are a victim a negative judgement on them. The small paragraph constituted very little of the article so undue weight arguments are frankly ludicrous. Given that she has given interviews on this and spoken publically about it (the People interview was over a year later and it was still the first topic discussed), its not surprising there are plenty of sources available. Jehochman if you continue to issue threats I will take you to straight to Arbcom for misuse of tools while involved in a content dispute. Gain consensus to remove it and desist from threatening other editors. Only in death does duty end (talk) 01:41, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the material, as per WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE, which prescribes that negative contentious material should not be restored without consensus on the article talk page that it is appropriate, properly weighted, etc. It is sensible and policy-mandated that we discuss and reach consensus on suitability before such material is included in a biography. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:46, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As its not a BLP violation issue the above is irrelevant. Secondly see above. Consensus is clear its to be included in a brief form. Its currently about as brief as you can get. Nor is the information negative. It shouldnt even be considered contentious given the wealth of available sources that have discussed it, as well as the subjects own interviews on the subject. Only in death does duty end (talk) 01:58, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see that this matter has been taken to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Jennifer Lawrence. A WP:Permalink for it is here. NorthBySouthBaranof cut the material further; per what I've stated above, I don't agree with it being cut that short, but it's better than Jehochman's suggestions. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:20, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

As I stated at the BLP noticeboard, I think that saying "Lawrence was a victim of the hack" is a much bigger BLP violation because it doesn't include her own take on the incident. She was quite explicit in that she has nothing to be ashamed of in the matter. Treating it as if it is shameful is worse. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:22, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You aren't making any sense. There would be a link to the article about that hack. That article already includes full context, including her response. The biography article is 104 sentences. You are suggesting that we make this incident 3 sentences, or about 1/30th of the article content. Ms.Lawrence is highly notable and has been covered in many articles. I very much doubt that 1/30th of the coverage revolves around this incident. She is 25 years old. I don't think this incident represents 1/30th of her life story. So, what you are suggesting is a violation of WP:UNDUE, "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text..." Jehochman Talk 16:06, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So perhaps the rest of the article does not go into enough depth. I'm not saying that the phone hack is 3% of her life story, but to demand that every event be proportional is ridiculous. You say 3 sentences out of 104 is too many, well looking at the article a few lines is quite a small part, so no I don't see it as particularly problematic. You seem to have decided on your opinion from the outset, and are trying to force others to accommodate you through your use of WP:CAPITALLETTERS. Pretending the incident did not occur, or saying it did occur but not including Lawrence's response, is doing her a greater disservice than including it. You seem to be implying that the incident is somehow shameful, and that is the problem, not its inclusion here. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:58, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Jehochman, you are the one who is not making any sense, and various editors have stated as much. You should accept it and move on. We will not be cutting this bit any further and we will not be removing it. If anything, we will be adding to it. If you cannot accept that, a WP:RfC surely will, and I highly doubt that WP:Consensus resulting from it will be any different than the one currently on this talk page (which involves editors from different pages; remember, I notified the WP:BLP, WP:Biography and WP:Film pages to this discussion, and now editors from the WP:BLP noticeboard are weighing in). Removing "nude photographs," "iCloud account by a hacker" and/or Lawrence's comment on the matter does nothing to help protect her, given that this incident is widely known and that we have a Wikipedia article on it. What we have included in this Jennifer Lawrence Wikipedia article is not salacious detail, as you call it, except maybe to young teenage boys, or men who seriously need to "get laid." The article currently doesn't give the context of the images that Lawrence is talking about, which is that they are nude images of her that she did not publicly approve. We need to remove "nude photographs," really? We need to make readers go to the 2014 celebrity photo hack article, which simply states "many containing nudity," for that detail? Seriously? Doing that is bad Wikipedia writing, and so I again point you to WP:Summary style. In my opinion, it is quite disrespectful to Lawrence to silence her view on the matter in this article. Trying to silence the fact that she considers anyone who has viewed those images as perpetrating a sexual offense is more typical of the men who know they viewed those images and hate Lawrence's commentary on it. None of this is trivial. This was not a trivial moment in her life, by all accounts documented (including her own words on it and that she sought legal action for it). This is an encyclopedia, and we should act like it's one. Neglecting to cover a hugely significant incident in a notable person's life, an incident that the notable person commented on in a very significant way, or being vague about that incident, is not acting like it is one. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:51, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a reliable source to say that this was a "hugely significant incident"? I also don't appreciate the multiple personal attacks contained in your statement, to the effect that anybody who disagrees with you "need[s] to 'get laid'" or is one of "the men who know they viewed those images and hate Lawrence's commentary on it". It's all rubbish. Jehochman Talk 19:06, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Read the sources; they are quite clear about how significant this incident was in her life. So are her own words. And as for WP:Personal attacks, I made no personal attack on you with regard to the "not salacious detail" or "Trying to silence the fact" commentary; I was making a point that removing her commentary makes not a bit of sense for Wikipedia, and I noted the people who usually have a problem with that comment. I was stating that I see no reason for us to have a problem with it, unlike those people. I know better than to throw such a personal attack at you; the last thing I need is another administrator wrongly or justifiably blocking me. You know, the way you've indicated that you would wrongly block editors on this "scandal" matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:13, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

I agree that "telling Vanity Fair" is wasting words. I think that bringing up the issue of nudity or a sex crime is definitely click-bait. It is something that will make a certain segment of the audience go looking for the photos. Lawrence only commented because the issue was being reported in the press and she wanted to rebut as best she could. I suspect she would be happier if we didn't mention "sex" or "nudity" in her biography. It is sufficient, I think, to say that she was a victim of the photo hack, without characterizing the photos. Anybody wanting more detail can click through to the photo hack article. That article has its own problems, but fortunately we don't have to deal with them here. Jehochman Talk 18:33, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Since some editors feel that Jehochman thinks his word holds more weight than anyone else's here, and he edited the quote further to seemingly challenge my "18:51, 31 December 2015 (UTC)" post where I stated, "We will not be cutting this bit any further and we will not be removing it.", the only solution is to put the matter to a vote. He's already rejected your first proposal, Lapadite77, and I doubt he'd approve of your latest proposal. I'm fine with either of your proposals, but I'd prefer that we not include "scandal." I also don't think we need to include "called the leak a 'sex crime' and a 'sexual violation'," since Lawrence's quote makes it clear that she considers the matter a sexual offense. And I'd rather state "her iCloud account" instead of "celebrity iCloud accounts" to keep the material focused on her. You stated that you don't like including the excerpted quote, yet you included it in your proposals. Do you mean the "cower with shame" bit? Either way, I don't see how including Lawrence's commentary gives a tabloidish feel. Below, I will offer options for the wording, so that people can vote. If needed, I will turn it into a WP:RfC. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:05, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the "cower with shame". I agree on the use of "scandal" (misremembered the article name). I'd like to note that the proposals aren't definitive or the only ones to consider. If editors don't entirely agree with any please propose an alternative. I don't disagree with a mere mention of the photo hack, and I don't take issue with a mention of the hack and her most relevant/direct response so I support all proposals that do so concisely and in a neutral tone. Lapadite (talk) 00:01, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How best to include the material?

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

Support first proposal

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

  • First choice. Jehochman Talk 19:26, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obviously. We're not to right great wrongs or to be a soapbox for certain celebs, this is a succinct description of what happened, the linked article is fine for further explanation. More within the subject's article would be undue. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:07, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Including it without her response is worse than not including it at all. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:51, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Why? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:54, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Because if you leave it as "she was a victim", that's all she was. But in reality, she expressed a thoughtful view and refused to be ashamed of it at all. I found it very admirable. Saying she was a victim without anything further does her a disservice and is exactly what BLP is meant to avoid IMO. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:25, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Everyone was a victim, so that's why we link to the main article. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:28, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    My point is that, unlike pretty much everyone else affected, Lawrence was not a passive actor in it. The "appropriate" response to having nude photos of yourself posted is, according to the world at large, to be shamed. Lawrence did not do that, and that should be noted. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:39, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Agree with Jehochman and The Rambling Man. The above statement should of course be appropriately cited. This event and her response are available and sourced on the event article. Per UNDUE, IMHO, this BLP needs no more information; she was merely one of hundreds of victims to a crime. Thanks for the thread on ANI which drew my eye to this discussion. BusterD (talk) 21:22, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This whole event is tabloid fodder that will be forgotten within a year, and furthermore, quoting her does not add any substance to the article. Her stock "this sucks" remarks are banal and repeating them only serves to add to the WP:UNDUE aspects of this whole incident. Elspamo4 (talk) 21:55, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Far too cryptic. If this is worth mentioning at all, and it seems like it is, it's worth an additional sentence or two giving context. To mention it without context is telling/reminding some readers that nude photos exist on the Internet, but nothing else. Downplaying it is superficially sensible, but ultimately it's a lot more tabloid-like and trashy to talk about it without that context. She was the victim of a significant crime, so briefly including what the crime was, and her reaction, is both appropriate weight and more respectful. Grayfell (talk) 22:27, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly. Without context of her response, this is just saying you can find naked photos on google. Giving a sentence of explanation not only allows people to know what happened without having to read an entire other article (contrary to popular belief, there is nothing in the rules against a very brief explanation of a bluelinked event), it allows Lawrence's side of the story to be shown. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:44, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Far too vague. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 22:50, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Lapadite77's first proposal

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

Support Lapadite77's second proposal

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

Support Flyer22 Reborn's first proposal

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

Support Flyer22 Reborn's second proposal

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

Support current state of the material

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

Support mattbuck's proposal

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

  • Support as proposer. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:12, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose undue weight to something trivial that has its own article to cover all this. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:13, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. More information than necessary. BusterD (talk) 21:27, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    BusterD, you seem to think everything is "more information than necessary". We are in the business of providing information here on Wikipedia. I'm not suggesting we go into detail about the hack beyond "nude pictures were leaked as part of a hack, Lawrence said X about it". This way it states the fact, it gives Lawrence's view on it, and then moves on to whatever comes next in the article. That's not "too much" information, it's barely any information at all. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:34, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I think in this particular case, virtually everything is more information than necessary. The subject herself definitely meets GNG, but not every tabloid aspect of her life needs coverage to create a B-class or better article. As a longtime contributor here and an avid lifelong reader of encyclopedias, I find it difficult to justify inclusion of anything more than a bare mention and link to the event, an event well-documented and sourced in its own notable subject pagespace. Miss Lawrence's involvement in and response to the event is more than adequately documented at the event article. I believe personalizing a BLP with tabloid material is just as poor a choice as personalizing a talkpage discussion intended to render an impartial best choice on a BLP page. BusterD (talk) 23:04, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This seems about as brief as possible while still giving appropriate context. When someone is the victim of a significant crime covered by many major sources (no, not just tabloids), summarizing that briefly is entirely due and appropriate. Grayfell (talk) 22:40, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 22:48, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support extensive coverage

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

If you can come up with good sources to tell the story that this hack and her reaction greatly increased her fame, that would be interesting. If she becomes a leader of the movement against cyber-bullying, and hacking, that would justify expanded coverage. I'm not sure I see this yet, but I am open to being convinced if you have more sources. Jehochman Talk 23:58, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Having read the article now :-) I see what you are saying. This is dated 12.31.2015, so very fresh. I think we need to wait a bit and see if we can corroborate it with other articles, to see whether this is the prevailing view, or just one writer's opinion. If it is the prevailing view, the story then becomes, Jennifer Lawrence was one of the most notable celebrities affected by the iCloud photo leak. In response, she spoke out..., greatly increasing her fame and popularity. The "increasing her fame and popularity" are what would make this incident worth more than a passing mention, if it affects the trajectory of her career. Jehochman Talk 00:13, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest that this is basically what other folks have been saying all along. It isn't so much how it affects the trajectory of her career, it's her courage and leadership on the issue. It isn't that it's making her more or less famous, it's illustrative of her character. That's why it matters. Montanabw(talk) 00:25, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. Can you identify sources that connect the dots? If this incident had a greater meaning, we need to explain it for clueless wonders like me who don't follow entertainment and celebrity news. I agree with including more content if we explain why it's relevant. Jehochman Talk 00:34, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jennifer_Lawrence&oldid=697800271"