Talk:Peter Dinklage/Archive 1

He's the world's most famous dwarf, and this should be in the introduction

This guy is probably the most famous dwarf in the world, but when I mentioned that he was a dwarf in the introduction, somebody deleted it without explanation. It really needs to be mentioned - especially since his diminutive stature is important to most of his roles.

The most recent episode of game of thrones (06x08) called this out. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QK2mDUOHU7Q 19:34, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Filmography

I followed the "Filmography" example that was used in the Janeane Garofalo entry. Unfortunately, most of the films listed do not have Wiki pages associated with them. My gut feeling is to keep the list there, regardless. --AStanhope 17:41, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

He was also in "In Bruges", a smallish but key role. ChristopherCondit (talk) 00:03, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Checked the last listing "Pixels" which references a short video which does not reference any voice acting, the page it links to is about a short that came out in 2010, not 2016 like this page claims. However, a quick check on IMDB shows his involvement in a similarly titled work. Pixels on IMDB 174.2.170.128 (talk) 08:46, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

year?

"Living In Oblivion" is credited as 1995 in the Filmography and 1994 in the photo's caption. I did not change this as I don't know which is more correct.

it' 1995. fixed. --SVTCobra 23:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Little Person?

Dinklage has said on more than one occasion that he is a 'dwarf'. Thus, I think it would be more appropriate to call him that.

I agree completely; "little person" is not politically correct and since the link leads to dwarfism anyway, I've changed it.

And just to drive this point home:

Q: You are very upfront in describing yourself as a dwarf...

A: I don't like people being cautious and tentative and choosing their words carefully around me because I'm a dwarf. There are a lot of people in a lot worse shape than me. I'm 4'5" and it's part of who I am, just not the whole part. I guess the word to call me is my name, Pete.[1] María (críticame) 16:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Photo

That photo is a bit blurry. Is there a better one out there? --Drm310 (talk) 15:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, it's pretty awful guys. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atheuz (talk • contribs) 23:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

This great actor deserves a better photo in my opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.179.204.39 (talk) 13:13, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Fourthed on the in-need-of-a-better-photo bit. The one posted is rather insultingly bad. Evixir (talk) 01:35, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

This is a common problem with wikipedia articles about famous people. Nobody wants to give up the rights to professional-quality photos, so we end up with random amateur stuff snapped at book signings or crowded public events. If somebody had the time and authority, they could probably get agents to approve good pix for wikipedia articles of most actors/singers/etc., but there are a lot more pressing needs. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 03:07, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Music Video

Is he in the music video of Short Stack's song, Sway Sway Baby? 'Cause it sure does look like him... Take a look: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wNmQBcv9vk&feature=channel —Preceding unsigned comment added by Margiechocoholic (talk • contribs) 05:55, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Is this him in 1983? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7movKfyTBII • Sbmeirow • Talk • 03:13, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

He is also in the video clip for the U2 song 'All I want is you'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.253.104 (talk) 11:25, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

"Everyday Love" (Rascal Flatts)

Peter was in the Rascal Flatts Music video for "Everyday Love". He played the leader of the rival bowling team in the video, in which the band members from Rascal Flatts obviously portrayed the main bowling team. 50.138.214.165 (talk) 21:11, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Current photo

I've been trying to get a good quality photo of Peter released under a CC license but I haven't had any luck.

In the meantime, I found this image: File:Peter_dinklage_2005.png. It's blurry and it's pretty old but he's looking straight at the camera which is something the current one does not have. Any opinions? --CyberGhostface (talk) 01:19, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Too blurry. Jarkeld.alt (Talk) 10:47, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

"Height"??? Seriously??

Don't you think it's nonsense to specifically report his height under the section below his photo? Why aren't we reporting his weight then, because his not super-thin or super-fat? I find it ridiculous to put that piece of information there, especially when no other thing related to his physiology is reported. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.37.31.148 (talk) 17:10, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

What's so ridiculous about it? His height is a distinguishing feature. Unusual details are unusual, trivial details are trivial and can be omitted, it really shouldn't be so hard to understand. If you know his weight and can reference it, go ahead and add it to the template. 178.94.14.225 (talk) 17:07, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Birthplace

Article contradicts birthplace. "Early life" says Newark (with dead link) and right side of the page says Morristown. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.25.229.183 (talk) 21:28, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Excellent source on biographical details

• Peter Dinklage Was Smart to Say No nytimes.com March 29, 2012 . 91.39.75.215 (talk) 14:38, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on Peter Dinklage

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

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

• http://watchersonthewall.com/peter-dinklage-headed-set-game-thrones-closes-beach-filming/

  Triggered by \bwatchersonthewall\.com\b on the local blacklist

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

From your friendly hard working bot.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:35, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

"Personal life" section

The passage: "Dinklage continued to seek out applause as part of the drama club" could be read as a little withering or snide... Regardless of what Dinklage has said about getting a good early response, arguably the sentence in question presupposes that approval was his foremost motivation. Perhaps a member could fix it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.152.159.39 (talk) 00:25, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Fair point. Whilst I don't think it was necessarily meant that way, I do agree that it can be read to make him sound a bit needy or something. In view of this, I think that kind of wording could only really be used if it was in a referenced quote, not in Wikipedia's apparent voice. I've changed it to something more neutral. And please note that it doesn't need a "member" to fix it - we can all change most articles, so next time, you can have a try yourself! It's not more difficult than editing this Talk page. :) Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 14:32, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

RFC on the inclusion of his dwarfism in the lead

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is consensus for mentioning his dwarfism in the lede. The majority opinion is that it is a part of him and mentioned in reliable sources. The minority opinion cites WP:UNDUE. WP:UNDUE says to "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." Since his dwarfism is in many of the sources, it is not undue, but location of the wording played a part in the proposed wording. There is true consensus for the IDEA A wording. Which appears to have solved the issue. AlbinoFerret 18:10, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

---

Is it appropriate to mention Peter Dinklage's dwarfism in the lead, or is it sufficient to be mentioned later in the article?

• Oppose mentioning in the lead, because, while a true, verifiable fact, it is not sufficiently relevant for the lead, per WP:UNDUE, gives an inordinate amount of prominence to the fact. --Jayron32 03:00, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

  Changing vote to Support. Arguments have been made which present convincing evidence that as part of a properly written lead, and if written correctly and with better phrasing than existed when this RFC was drafted, this is relevant enough to his acting career. I concur with the sentiment that the "He's an actor and dwarf" phrasing is a problem, but a properly written and formatted discussion of his dwarfism and its role in his acting career would be quite proper in this article. --Jayron32 18:04, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose mentioning in the lead as WP:UNDUE even though I think it was probably meant as identification and doubt it was meant to be undue or pejorative. I could perhaps see its inclusion in the lead if it were part of a brief explanation of its role in him becoming a prominent actor or in not hindering him from becoming a prominent actor but I am not really advocating that. On the other hand, it is mentioned in the very next sentence and is prominently discussed in detail where appropriate in the article and in a generally appropriate way. It is not as if it needs to be mentioned in the lead because it is much later in the article or is not adequately discussed. If readers do not know about his dwarfism when they come to the page, which seems unlikely, they will find out about it quickly and later in the article. Though not pejorative in my view, the mention in the lead is rather stark, and I think it is unnecessary. Donner60 (talk) 06:40, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose mention in lead as undue. The source used to verify dwarfism does not mention that term until the eighth paragraph, and that's a good guide for this article. Johnuniq (talk) 07:09, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support as Dinklage is arguably the best actor with that particular characteristic ever, and it's an obvious part of who he is. The particular sources used are irrelevant, as any in-depth interview touches on the subject--he is physically different, and that has shaped both how he was raised, and how he has been perceived. Citing UNDUE would only be relevant if his height were something rarely mentioned, such as the religious or political values of a celebrity. Jclemens (talk) 07:20, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

  To expand a bit, allow me to review what WP:LEAD actually says: "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies" (emphasis mine). While dwarfism need not be mentioned in the first sentence of the lead, it needs to be mentioned somewhere in the lead, or else the lead has failed to do its job in summarizing the salient points of the article. Looking at the state its in now, the lead doesn't really do a good job of it, and I think the proper, policy-based solution is to expand and rewrite the lead so it's less in-your-face about that one (admittedly major) facet, and places it as one of many facets appropriately summarized together in an expanded and DUE lead. Jclemens (talk) 07:25, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support I agree with Jclemens. I think including it contributes to achieve the goal for the lead section. I am also convinced that it is not pejorative in any way. Trying to remove it from the lead may send the message that there is something wrong with it. I think that would be worst, specially since the subject of the BLP himself chooses to embrace it as what it is, just another human trait. I think that it is relevant for the lead section of this article, but I also agree that the lead could be improved by expanding it. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 08:58, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
• Uncommitted and weak support for in lead somewhere but very strong oppose in lead sentence (as currently done). The lead can often be thought of as an abstract that summaries the whole article. If a person only reads the lead they should still have a good overview of the subject. If a person were to only read the lead without his dwarfism being mentioned, they would be missing an important characteristic of this actor; so it should be mentioned somewhere in the lead, I suppose. If I were in a conversation with friends, I'd hate to be a person unaware that Dinklage has dwarfism because only I only read the lead of his article. It should definitely not be mentioned in the lead sentence, as is currently the case ("Peter Dinklage is an American actor and self-identified dwarf."). I'm haven't spent the time to see who did that and why it's managed to stick around but my first reaction is that very poor judgment has been made. Why? Dinklage is notable for being an actor, not for being a dwarf, and mentioning his dwarfism so soon reeks of undue weight and is, quite frankly, disrespectful to him and his accomplishments. I don't think anybody would find a lead sentence like "John Candy was an actor and obese man." to be a high-quality lead sentence. For what it's worth, Candy's lead does not mention his obesity, nor does Warwick Davis' lead mention his dwarfism; so not mentioning prominent physical attributes has some precedent. (It would be an interesting thing to more carefully look at how we handle physical appearance in the leads in general.) As I wrote this, I can feel my support for mention in the lead at all waning. I remain uncommitted to it. Further reflection may change my mind. Jason Quinn (talk) 19:57, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

 Comment: If it can be of help to the debate, this is what the Actor himself said on the matter (copied from a section above):

Q: You are very upfront in describing yourself as a dwarf...
A: I don't like people being cautious and tentative and choosing their words carefully around me because I'm a dwarf. There are a lot of people in a lot worse shape than me. I'm 4'5" and it's part of who I am, just not the whole part. I guess the word to call me is my name, Pete. (source)

--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 20:14, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support as like it or not it is a quite recognizable aspect of the subject, but the current "he is an actor and a dwarf"" line is simplistic and vapid. Rewrite with more high-brow prose, preferably referencing it by its proper name, Achondroplasia. Tarc (talk) 00:01, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support it's so blindly obvious! It's part of who he is. KoshVorlon We are all Kosh 11:54, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

This is an argument without a real argument (and is like the "contradiction" level on the pyramid on your user page). Dinklage has brown hair and he has two feet. None of those things deserve mention in the lead but a "two-footed brown haired actor is who is is" too. There are subtleties here so I reject the solution being "blindly obvious". Jason Quinn (talk) 13:55, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support But only because his height has been an integral part (not the totality) for some of his acting roles (Living in Oblivion, Game of Thrones etc). Both of them pretty much required a dwarf, and he was the best (short) actor for the job. If height was not relevant in any of his acting roles I would lean towards not including it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:26, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support; of course it should be! Albeit per Tarc's comments above, it needs to be appropriately written. Not doing so would equate to saying Babe Ruth was just an American sportsperson. Dwarfism is part of the reason he's notable, and as such is indispensable in the lede. Political correctness seems to be getting the best of us these days. I'm sure he'd accept Wikipedia discussed one of his primary attributes as such. After all, dwarfism is not a negative attribute, and none of us seems to be implying it is. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 01:06, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support, basically per FocusAndLearn. The lede needs to be a summary of the article. The article spends a non-negligible portion discussing his dwarfism, so should the lead. --GRuban (talk) 18:31, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Once again, the rule of notability trumps all else. From all the sources available, Dinklage is known first as an actor and then as a short person/dwarf. He is not, for example, some activist for dwarf causes or someone who became famous because he is a dwarf. All the sources acknowledge his excellence in his chosen profession, acting. Therefore, he is to be introduced as an actor - and not as someone who is fat, or short, or thin, or dark-skinned, etc. His physical characteristics should, of course, be detailed in the main boyd of the text. -The Gnome (talk) 07:57, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

 Comment: As pointed out by Jclemens and according to MOS:INTRO "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article". --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 08:47, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

This is, of course, well known and correct - and does not affect the position I support. The lead section should be about what he's known for, essentially and primarily. If he was, for example, famous for being a chef, then this too would be mentioned. Drinklage is famous for being an actor. And this is what the lead sentence should reflect. Notability is key. -The Gnome (talk) 11:07, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

You're missing the very important "s" at the end of "most important points". Yes, it is true that he is more notable as an actor than as a short actor; if the lead were only going to have the single most important point, we would leave out the height. But it doesn't say that. And it is hard to dispute that his height is among the most important points about him. --GRuban (talk) 15:10, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Also, Gnome keeps bringing up Notability, but I don't think he's actually read the Wikipedia page at WP:N. To quote that exact page he keeps citing, "Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article". For someone who is claiming below that the weight of his argument is so strong as to overcome a 3-1 vote differential, he's doing a pretty terrible job of actually making good, policy-based arguments. Citing a policy or guideline page to support the exact opposite point one is trying to make sort-of nullifies one's own vote... --Jayron32 02:36, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I have read and believe have understood very well what WP:N is all about. The subject of the entry is known (notable) for being an actor first and foremost. What I would suggest, if I may, is that we begin to include WP:BLP in our criteria for judgement. -The Gnome (talk) 10:32, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:N still doesn't mean we can't say he was a dwarf. All WP:N deals with is whether or not an article can exist. Bring it up in this context shows a direct lack of understanding on your part. Any post-hoc excuse you make does not make your prior citing of WP:N to change article content go away. You still did it. --Jayron32 11:02, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, as a matter of fact, nobody argued against saying he's a dwarf! Pointing out a strawman tactic is the only thing I will add in this thread. Thanks for the dialogue and take care. Let the decision fall where it may.-The Gnome (talk) 07:01, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

And to be honest, without a poll saying different, I doubt most of the western world would know who he is without Game of Thrones. (I'm pretty sure the internet is only aware of his name because of the theme tune being sung with the words 'Peter Dinklage' over and over...) He acted before GoT, but while critically acclaimed, not exactly a household name. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:04, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I cannot know what exactly you mean by the term "the western world" but Dinklage need not be a "household name" to satisfy the criteria for notability. For what it's worth, Dinklage had already played in the British hit comedy Death at a Funeral and the American mega-production X-Men: Days of Future Past. But, yes, famously (and irrelevantly), Dinklage became a "household name" through Thrones. Cheers. -The Gnome (talk) 10:32, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Death at a funeral certainly has his height as an integral part of the role - its even more exaggerated in the US remake. My point was that it is certainly arguable that he is known as a 'actor' before 'short actor' when a number of his more visible and high profile roles involve his height. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:23, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. WP:UNDUE. We don't start off a tall person's bio with, "Joe is tall." It's certainly relevant but can be managed in background section. SW3 5DL (talk) 04:20, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose is mostly my opinion. Although MOS:BLPLEAD says, "Ethnicity or sexuality should not generally be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability." But, bio articles that I've seen don't even do that. It may be considered notable that a person is a homosexual or of a certain ethnicity, etc., but that doesn't mean it should be in the lead (at least not in the first paragraph). I think a guideline to go by is: would it be included in the person's brief obituary? --Musdan77 (talk) 20:21, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

It was certainly prominent for Gwildor. And for Joe C. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:14, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

A good obituary would contrast his small stature with his big heart and/or talent. People love that sort of thing and expect it. An obituary that doesn't mention it would be seen as treating it as something shameful, not to be mentioned, which is quite contrary to Mr. Dinklage's expressed wishes. -- Jibal (talk) 10:25, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Per the "Little Person" section above, he prefers to be called "Pete." Mr. Dinklage is probably his father. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:28, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support for reasons given very fully by Jclemens. The lead should summarise the article, though wording needs to be sensitive. I'm sorry, but this actor's height is as much a defining characteristic as Paul Robeson's bass voice. It is not comparable to an actor's sexuality or a musician's blindness (as some suggest below), neither of which define them professionally, and as long as the issue is not handled insensitively, then it should be covered clearly in the lead. Pincrete (talk) 21:15, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support for reasons given by Jclemens and others. The arguments opposed are badly flawed. Every source includes mention that Mr. Dinklage is a dwarf; unlike his hair color and other attributes, it is clearly a very important fact for people. It's certainly an important fact for him. To omit it requires a willful act of obscuring information. -- Jibal (talk) 10:12, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

How to handle in lead?

It looks like there will be consensus to mention it in the lead. How? I'm a rare unicorn who has never actually watched Game of Thrones or seen any of Dinklage's work, so I may not be the best person to do it. But just to suggest something, the following is IDEA A. The exact wording is unimportant at this point. My idea is to add a small paragraph to the bottom of the lead, similar to

Peter Hayden Dinklage (/ˈdɪŋklɪdʒ/ DINGK-lij,[2] born June 11, 1969) is an American actor. Since his breakout role in The Station Agent (2003), he has appeared in numerous films and has voiced a character in a video game.

Since 2011, Dinklage has played Tyrion Lannister in the HBO series Game of Thrones. He won an Emmy and a Golden Globe Award for Supporting Actor in 2011, as well as consecutive Primetime Emmy nominations for the role from 2012 to 2015.

Dinklage was born and self-identifies as a dwarf[cite] (achondroplasic)[cite] and stands 4 ft 5 in (1.35 m)[cite] tall. Some sentence here about roles where his dwarfism was important.

The statements marked [cite] would need to be cited (preferably in the text later in the article. If you have an idea, suggest it below (as IDEA B, etc.) Jason Quinn (talk) 17:31, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

• Comment We are far from a consensus. Moreover, most votes in support of the notion offer cyclical arguments ("he is a dwarf") or none at all ("it's obvious he's a dwarf"). You are invited to re-think what is it that makes this person primarily and basically notable: if he was not an actor, he would not make Wikipedia. -The Gnome (talk) 07:57, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

8 support/3 oppose/1 on the edge is actually VERY CLOSE to consensus. --Jayron32 11:14, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

It depends on what we understand by the term "consensus". The Wikipedia definition details the variations for a possible consensus decision. -The Gnome (talk) 11:23, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

The only people who ever mention that "consensus doesn't mean vote counting" are people who are losing 3-to-1 in the vote. Yes, the weight of an argument in terms of its strength with regard to evidence and reason are important, but it is only EVER brought up by someone who a) is losing a vote by a ridiculous margin and b) who discounts the rationales on the opposing side merely because they don't like them. While other factors are taken into play, decision making by consensus must, by necessity take into account the overall vote totals. It's not a "50% +1 and you win" vote, but saying that also doesn't mean the vote totals should be ignored. --Jayron32 19:59, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion that it is, practically speaking, "only losers" who quibble about the term "consensus". Note that I did not say anything remotely like what you are trying to put in my mouth - or my typing fingers. I never disputed the validity of "vote counting". I simply wrote, and the text is still here, that there are many ways to reach consensus and, what's most important, I pointed out what, for me, are some very weak arguments in favor of "Support", i.e. that there is a qualitatively weak support. That was intended for the people in Wikipedia who decide on RfC's. I may be mistaken in this affair, as I have been mistaken in the past and will continue to be in the future, but I strongly desire that my position is always reflected accurately. Cheers. -The Gnome (talk) 10:17, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I can't detect any difference between your notion of consensus and simply agreeing with you. And in my view, the arguments in favor are strong and yours are extremely weak and poorly argued, with inapt analogies and misuse of of Wikipedia policy. As has been pointed out to you, notability is only relevant to whether an article is to be included; it is explicitly not relevant to content. Fact: there is a clear consensus. -- Jibal (talk) 09:58, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

When this section was started, the tally was actually 9-to-2 supporting mention in the lead until you showed up after a pause of two days with no support/oppose comments to make it 9-to-3. Saying we are "far from a consensus" is pure hyperbole; there is a super majority so far. In fact, given how hard it is to herd cats on Wikipedia on a topic like this, a 3-to-1 ratio is almost like approaching some form of pragmatic unanimity. You "invite me to re-think" notability, pointing out that he's notable for being an actor. Um, please read my comment because I wrote the very same thing. Regardless, this whole section is intended to plan a course of action if consensus is achieved. That's perfectly reasonable given the discussion so far. Please comment on the given idea or list your own. This is not the place to debate if consensus has been achieved. That can be done elsewhere and in the future. Jason Quinn (talk) 16:01, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I humbly and sincerely apologize for the uncalled-for "pause" which you mention. I will try to not let this happen again. :-) The rest of your commentary is duly noted and I have nothing to add or change in what I already wrote. Cheers. -The Gnome (talk) 10:17, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

On the other hand he would not have got his most well-known role if he was not a dwarf. Were he six foot he would not have been cast as the Imp. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:03, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Your comment applies to practically all actors because they are first chosen on the basis of their physical attributes. For example, we cast a male for the lead male role; we cast a tall, handsome male for the role of the vain, tall, handsome character; we cast a fat, black girl for the role of the funny, fat, black girl; and so on. Yet we do not lead the entry for George Clooney with "handsome". If Clooney had different physical traits, he most certainly would have been cast in different parts, if at all. -The Gnome (talk) 08:21, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Handsome is, first, subjective - lots of people would consider others far more handsome than Clooney - while height is objective, it can be measured. More important, being handsome is not really all that distinctive or notable among Hollywood leading men. They're almost all handsome; it's almost a job requirement. As someone writes, we might as well write that he has two eyes or two feet. Darn few of them are dwarfs. --GRuban (talk) 15:10, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I tried to give obvious counter-examples but, if you insist, we can restrict ourselves to objectively extant physical traits, such as "tall", "fat", "thin", "with Down syndrome," etc. How many Wikipedia BLP entries do we have that list in their intro or the lead sentence such descriptions? -The Gnome (talk) 10:17, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

As for Down Syndrome, there's only one relatively famous America actor with it that I know, that's Chris Burke (actor), and his article mentions it in the lead sentence (which I think is poor form there too). I already gave a couple other examples above (I even mentioned the very questions you're raising are worth investigating already.) I suspect any general guideline regarding physical traits would boil down to "do it when it makes sense". Instead of de-focusing the topic of this section, could you please start a new third-level heading for this (worthwhile) topic? Thank you. Jason Quinn (talk) 16:14, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

"[The] article [on Chris Burke] mentions [that he has Down's Syndrome] in the lead sentence which I think is poor form": Precisely. -The Gnome (talk) 00:36, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

• I support IDEA A.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 10:26, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

  I agree. Jclemens (talk) 04:25, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• I also support IDEA A. Dinklage by all accounts celebrates his dwarfism, so mentioning it up front does not come across to me as pejorative. However, I beleive it should be its own sentence at the end of the lead paragraph.Pistongrinder (talk) 15:00, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I've seen no indication that he celebrates it. He does, however, accept it, and is up front and direct about it. -- Jibal (talk) 10:25, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

• Another vote in support of IDEA A. Dinklage's dwarfism isn't something shameful that needs to be hidden away in the body of the article. (Also, re Jason Quinn's comment above, Chris Burke is not the only notable actor with Down syndrome; there's also Jamie Brewer and Andrea Fay Friedman, off the top of my head.) —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 18:54, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support proposal denoted as "Idea A". -The Gnome (talk) 00:36, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support proposal IDEA A. Fair enough that it should be mentioned (although not necessarily in the lead), but the current wording (which I see was edited as I am typing this!) put(s) way too much emphasis on it by stating: PD is an American actor and dwarf. That's like saying Jim Parsons is a gay actor or Stevie Wonder is a blind musician. True but irrelevant - or at least not deserving of such a prominent mention in the lead. dllu (talk) 13:50, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
• I support IDEA A. -- Jibal (talk) 09:58, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

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

mistake on accident

Hi guys, I was putting more info about peter, and I accidentally pressed the whole reference button, can someone fix it? Thank you Jvanornum2019 (talk) 18:53, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Fixed - by reverting. The info you were putting in is already there, two or three sentences above where you placed it, no reason to repeat. --GRuban (talk) 19:01, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

thank you, I didn't see that one before Jvanornum2019 (talk) 19:45, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Peter Dinklage. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.goveg.com/f-peterdinklage.asp

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:34, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Peter Dinklage/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: RL0919 (talk · contribs) 20:23, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I'll pick this one up to review; expect to complete review by the end of the week. --RL0919 (talk) 20:23, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Comments:

• I did some copyediting and also replaced some sources that are not appropriate for an article about a living person.
• For the "citations to reliable sources" criterion:
  • Three dead links listed here should be addressed.

Done. All three has been archived. - AffeL (talk) 18:49, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

• • Footnote 5 uses FilmReference.com which is not recommended as a reliable source (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 93#filmreference.com and Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Resources)

Removed. - AffeL (talk) 18:49, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

• • The sentence "He grew up in Mendham Township, New Jersey, and is of German, English, and Irish descent" is supported with two questionable sources: "Neil Young's Film Lounge" and familysearch.org. The former looks like someone's personal fan site; if there is anything to indicate editorial oversight, I've missed it. The latter is reliable, but runs afoul of WP:BLPPRIMARY.

I removed the latter source. I can't seem to find a reliable source that mentions where grew up or his descent. Should I just remove that part? or is this(http://www.uselessdaily.com/movies/peter-dinklage-trivia-22-fun-facts-about-the-actor/#.WDNAWH2FlhY) a good source? - AffeL (talk) 18:49, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Since this is a BLP, I would say remove if there is no better source. "Useless Daily" seems to be some sort of corporate venture, but shows more signs of clickbait aggregation than of editorial review and fact-checking. (You are of course welcome to ask at WP:RSN for a second opinion.) --RL0919 (talk) 03:30, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I removed that sentence. - AffeL (talk) 16:49, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

• • Footnote 28 does not appear to contain the "Hollywood nonsense" phrase that is given in quotes.

Removed the sentence all togheter. - AffeL (talk) 18:49, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

• For the "broad in its coverage" criterion: The section on Filmography and accolades should have a summary, even if it is only a single paragraph, not just links to the related articles. This is particularly important because some awards are mentioned in the lead section that are not otherwise mentioned in the body of the article.

@RL0919: The awards mentioned in the lead section are in the body itself. Does that section really need a summary?. Because I have been looking at other Good articles. like for example: Leonardo DiCaprio#Filmography and accolades. - AffeL (talk) 18:49, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

You are correct about the awards; my mistake on that. But the section should still have a summary. I can't speak to every GA review -- one of the problems of the GA process is that single reviewers produces a degree of inconsistency. Since the "Career" section gives a lot of filmography specifics, one option might be to link the "screen and stage" article as the main article under "Career". Then change the final section back to "Awards and nominations", using a variation of the two-sentence lead from the awards article as the summary. --RL0919 (talk) 03:30, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

@RL0919: Done, I did what you just said. I did some kind of summary for the "Award and nominations" section. is that sentence good enough?. - AffeL (talk) 16:49, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Will do for GA. (If you go to FA, the "comprehensive" requirement may require more, but GA only requires "broad" coverage.) --RL0919 (talk) 17:27, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Overall the article is pretty good and is only missing on a couple of the GA criteria. I'm assuming the points above could be addressed within a seven-day hold period, but let me know if you think that will be a problem. --RL0919 (talk) 05:27, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

All issues above are addressed, so congratulations on your latest GA. --RL0919 (talk) 17:27, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Unexplained revert

User:AffeL: If you refuse to talk about it on your talk page, then we can do it publically here. Explain why you made this revert.—and your edit comment "why on earth not?" Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:38, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Because it looks better that way.. - AffeL (talk) 07:39, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

What kind of an answer is that? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:30, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

What kind of question is that? - AffeL (talk) 12:04, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Presumably you have some background with CT such that you think replies that are indistinguishable from trolling are appropriate. However, your edit was not helpful and it would be better to acknowledge that or say nothing. @CT: I'm not stalking you—this page has been on my watchlist since the RfC above with my 2015 comment. Johnuniq (talk) 01:52, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

For those wondering. I have reverted the vandal edit made by User:Curly "JFC" Turkey, fixing the issues made. - AffeL (talk) 12:31, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, we now have incontovertible evidence that you're trolling. Luckily, someone has fixed your garbage. Perhaps we should examine AffeL's edit history carefully—this editor seems to have a history of this sort of disruption. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:29, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Overruling the RFC

[2]

@AffeL: The RFC (currently visible further up this page) was entitled RFC on the inclusion of his dwarfism in the lead and the question read Is it appropriate to mention Peter Dinklage's dwarfism in the lead, or is it sufficient to be mentioned later in the article? Once there was a clear majority in favour of inclusion in the lead in some form, a separate question asked How to handle in lead?, and the proposed wording received unanimous support from eight editors.

The closer of the RFC worded his close as The majority opinion is that it is a part of him and mentioned in reliable sources. The minority opinion cites WP:UNDUE. WP:UNDUE says to "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." Since his dwarfism is in many of the sources, it is not undue, but location of the wording played a part in the proposed wording. There is true consensus for the IDEA A wording. Which appears to have solved the issue.

Three weeks ago you added on to this consensus wording Dinklage ... has been viewed as a role model for people sharing his condition, partially because of refusing roles considered degrading for dwarf actors. and then about teo weeks later cut the latter half of this as it was unsourced. Please explain how an addition to the lead about the subject's dwarfism "has nothing to do with" an RFC about how the lead should address the subject's dwarfism, which had also established exactly how the lead should address his dwarfism.

Also pinging User:Jibal, User:Michael riber jorgensen, User:The Gnome, User:GrammarFascist, User:Pistongrinder, User:Jclemens, User:Crystallizedcarbon and User:Jason Quinn. Please note that I do not necessarily oppose the addition on its merits; I just think that there should be clear talk page consensus to add something against a previously established consensus. I also recognize that consensus can change, and that I may well be misreading the RFC, since the closer was himself a problem editor whose RFC closes were a major source of disruption for the project back in 2015 when the RFC took place.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:09, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

What was agreed on was this: "Dinklage was born and self-identifies as a dwarf[cite] (achondroplasic)[cite] and stands 4 ft 5 in (1.35 m)[cite] tall. Some sentence here about roles where his dwarfism was important.". Instead of a sentence about roles where his dwarfism was important, something else regarding his dwarfism has been added(that he is a role model for people sharing his condition). What is the problem with that? If people have a problem with this, then we can always change it from "and he has been viewed as a role model for people sharing his condition." to just "and he has been viewed as a role model."(that way his condition won't be mentioned in that sentance) - AffeL (talk) 23:21, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

You can't just remove part of the consensus wording and add something else "[i]nstead of" it. There was a significant minority arguing that any inclusion of his dwarfism in the lead was WP:UNDUE. (Again, I worry that the RFC closer may have been super-!voting by essentially saying that since sources mention it that this significant minority, whose !votes I haven't tallied up but it looks like a lot more than "three", can be ignored: if you wanted to aegue that the RFC result was therefore invalidated, I might agree with you.) Some of the editors who supported the consensus wording might have moved over to opposing it as UNDUE if your addition had been part of the proposal (this is why I pinged everyone, by the way). Therefore, expanding on what was decided on by previous consensus is way out if line. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:38, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

By the way -- I was aware of your removing part of the consensus wording earlier, and thought it fishy. But then again it seemed fishy that at the time you added the RFC-based sentence back in April it wasn't already in the lead. I am not sure if they forgot to implement the consensus wording way back in 2015, or if someone else unilaterally removed it at some point, or if there was consensus to remove it somewhere else. I wouldn't put it past AlbinoFerret, given his behaviour elsewhere, to close an RFC in favour of making an edit to the article, but not actually making said edit or informing anyone that the RFC had been closed. This whole process is extremely complex, and is not something one random FAC commenter and the FAC nominator should just be ignoring. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:49, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I removed "for people sharing his condition" for now, so it won't mention his condition. I guess all we can do is wait and see if other users agree that "for people sharing his condition" should be added or not. - AffeL (talk) 23:57, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Is this acceptable? It was done without "taking it to the talk page" and getting a consensus first, which was supposed to be the whole deal. What on earth is "role model" supposed to mean without context, anyways? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:00, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Role model is someone you look up to. And yes it is acceptable as it has nothing to do with the RFC(cause it does not mention is condition) - AffeL (talk) 00:02, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Already responded to this problem below, but what the hell.

AffeL, you are not allowed add content to the lead that isn't verified in the body. If one reads the body, and the sources cited therein, they will see that the only reference to "role model" is specifically about him being a role model for other people with dwarfism. Either the sentence is a violation of the general rule regarding article leads, or it is a violation of previous consensus regarding how this article's lead should address dwarfism.

Furthermore, when you added the sentence in the first place, you were actually not fulfilling User:Midnightblueowl's recommendation (as I explained here). MBO wound up supporting the promotion of the page anyway, so it looks like their support was not actually conditional on your violating the RFC consensus, but please stop and think about this -- is there any point going to all this trouble to fulfill an FAC recommendation that wound up not being important for said user to support the nomination?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:23, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

The sources says he is a role model, for what kinds of people is a entire separate thing and does not really matter. The content that he is a role model is verfied in the body(See source). Also the source I added now even says he is a "role model for actors". - AffeL (talk) 00:31, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. The lead should summarize the body of our article, not what you found in an external source, and especially not what you found in an external source that you then tagged on to a sentence in the body that it doesn't support. You need to rewrite the sentence in the body to match the new source, and remove the old source; otherwise, the lead sentence is explicitly referring to his dwarfism.

Also, you have not answered my question -- why are you wasting time fighting over this, when you added the sentence in the first place because someone recommended you briefly add... that he ... has spoken out on little people issues to the lede? Pinging User:Midnightblueowl again, as they have apparently logged into Wikipedia twice since I first pinged them, but have not responded yet. MBO, if you don't want anything more to do with this, I apologize for the repeated pings, but if that is the case then you should just strike your earlier recommendation and state in the edit summary that you don't care anymore and either that your "support" can be ignored or that your "support" was not conditional on that recommendation.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:46, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Alright.. I could rewrite the sentance in the body so that it says "Dinklage has been viewed as a role model, particularly for people sharing his condition." Then it will match the lead and the other source. Why am I wasting my time?.. I could ask the same question. I'm not wasting my time, I'm just doing what I think is best for this page. And I think mentioning his Dwarfism more makes for a better lead. - AffeL (talk) 00:58, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

@AffeL: The reason I'm wasting my time is because I'm hoping you will come to your senses. You were warned not three weeks ago by an admin (and former Arb) about the need to work collaboratively and respect consensus (and kinda-sorta warned about edit-warring). As much of a drain on me as "discussing" this issue has been, it would be an even bigger time sink to take you to ANI, which is why I'm really hoping you will start to actually read my messages, take what I have said to heart, apologize for the mess you've caused up to now, and respect the previous consensus. So far only one of the original eight RFC commenters has chimed in, but I can't see how any of them could find your unilaterally overruling of their earlier consensus to be acceptable. You need to respect consensus. I actually kind of agree with you on the substance of this edit, but I also appreciate the fact that there was an overwhelming consensus not to include any more than is necessary about his dwarfism in the lead. If you want, we could start a new RFC to establish a new consensus on this matter specifically. But we can't do that with you blocked and/or TBANned (well, I could, but "we" includes you), which is almost certainly what will happen if you don't stop this. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:33, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

"The sources says he is a role model, for what kinds of people is a entire separate thing and does not really matter"—this is the most blithering gibberish. I can't even imagine what your goal is with this. The issue is obviously not going to go away—we'll have to see what the folks at ANI have to say about how to deal with you. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:39, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

• I've re-read the RfC, and I don't see any need to change anything at all. Dinklage's achondroplasia should be mentioned, late in the lede, and in a matter-of-fact, sensitive manner. Unilateral changes to an RfC-derived wording are not advisable, for precisely these reasons. Jclemens (talk) 04:53, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Jclemens. I have removed the claim from the lead for that reason and also according to WP:LEAD. A lead section should summarize the most important concepts developed in the main article. The role model claim, in those words, is backed by the author of one source and it is a concept that is just mentioned, not developed in the article's body. I also removed the claim about being an animals rights activist for a similar reason. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 07:39, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

@Crystallizedcarbon: I didn't mention this in the comment where I pinged you and the others as I didn't think it relevant, but the "animal rights" bit was added to the lead in response to a suggestion on the still-open FAC. Unlike the "role model" issue, that addition was not contrary to a previously established consensus, and (also unlike "role model") it was directly suggested by said RFC commenter. I really wish the commenter would respond to my repeated pings and clarify whether their support was conditional on their controversial suggestion being implemented. I'm not even trying to get them to withdraw their support (I'm not insane enough to think that "[i]t might be worth briefly adding" reads like a make-or-break condition): I just think them saying that it doesn't matter and the text can be removed would solve this problem immediately. The reason I'm telling you this that whether or not they have notifications disabled, it would probably be annoying if I was the one who showed up on their talk page and said "Hey, I'm the guy who pinged you a bunch of times..." Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:15, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello @Hijiri88: I agree with you that the role model claim should not be included due to the RFC but on top of that i believe that both claims fail to meet the WP:LEAD criteria. I also agree with your interpretation that the comment by Midnightblueowl on the FAC seems to be just an optional recommendation. I have left a message on his talk pointing to this discussion. Regards. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 09:11, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

The point that I was making in the FAC was that it seemed a little unusual to only mention Dinklage's dwarfism at the very end of the lede, as if it were just a random fact when (I would argue) it occupies a more central place in his identity and life history. I think that it is something that should be introduced to the reader when discussing Dinklage's early life. I don't know whether that conflicts with the previous RfC or not. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:18, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

I understand now that something that is not developed in the article's body, should not be in the lead. I will get behind that. - AffeL (talk) 11:16, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

@AffeL:, you've been here for four years -- you should have already known that before I told you earlier today.[3][4] Could you explain why you ignore advice when it comes from me or CT but you accept it happily (or at least give that impression) when it comes from someone other than me and someone whom you believe to be my sockpuppet? Note that I've asked Yunshui to have another word with you about your behaviour on this and related pages. I'm still hoping you'll accept whatever advice he doles out and I don't have to take this problem to ANI. I don't like bringing my own disputes to ANI, as it's quite difficult for me to be concise, and it's even more difficult to get the ANI peanut gallery to read anything more than 200-300 words. It would be really nice if you would just voluntarily change without me or CT having to request that you be blocked, TBANned or subjected to 1RR. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:40, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Note that I'm aware the last two sentences of the above comment are a little off-topic for the article talk page, but it is all in reply to AffeL's comment above. There is also the fact that if I had posted the response on AffeL's user talk page it would almost certainly be blanked without comment. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:44, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

You never said that something that is not developed in the article's body, should not be in the lead. If you would have said that, then I would have understand. You where talking about other stuff that made no sense. - AffeL (talk) 20:29, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

I said, and I quote, Per WP:LEAD, nothing can be in the lead that isn't also verified in the body and The lead should summarize the body of our article, not what you found in an external source. If you cannot read plain English and think it "makes no sense", then you shouldn't be editing here. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 20:38, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

 Comment: In my humble opinion when a consensus is reached it should be welcomed. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 20:43, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

You're right. The problem is that a consensus hasn't been reached; AffeL just agreed to stop revenge-reverting this one of my edits (which wasn't even an edit I wanted to make -- it was a procedural decision) this one time. He already knew he was in the wrong, which is why he didn't make any attempt to defend his revert beyond "get consensus". If you, Jclemens and Midnightblueowl promised to show up next time he does the same thing ... well, that still wouldn't actually solve the problem, as it would still be a time sink, just a slightly smaller one. We'll see what Yunshui says once he gets around to it. If that doesn't work, there might be only one option left. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 20:50, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

By the way, User:Crystallizedcarbon, the issue still hasn't been resolved except in the lead. CT still hasn't got back to me about this. I am sure if you reverted it then AffeL would probably call it "consensus" to undo his edit and drop the issue. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 20:54, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: I am have not followed your previous interactions with AffeL nor do I desire to do so. My (very optional) personal advice would be to center your arguments on content. If another user agrees to stop reverting one of your edits, please consider thanking him. It's free and it may lead her/him to be more receptive to doing so in the future. We all make mistakes. There is a brief mention about the the role model claim on the contested reference added by AffeL so it's probably OK to keep it. I must confess that I also missed it when I read the article. Regards. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 21:38, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Ugh. I wrote a response to the above and thought I had saved it about two hours ago. Anyway, I am happy that this one small issue (and the closely related one of the ST source being re-added despite contradicting the content) has been resolved, but I don't think behaviour like AffeL's is worthy of gratitude or praise. No matter the reason (his being to lazy to read my relatively long-winded comments before responding to what he assumes I said, or his deliberately pretending to be ignorant of what I said just to annoy me), stating that you were the first to cite the same guideline to him that I had explained (twice) hours earlier is way out of line. He has literally been pulling this act non-stop for the last three weeks, and will almost certainly do the same thing next time I make an edit to one of "his" articles that I can't ping a bunch of other editors to immediately back me up on. This is very off-topic, of course (the next time this happens will still probably be on this article, but not related to the "dwarfism in the lead" affair), and I am only posting here because I thought please consider thanking him [essentially for refusing to discuss anything with you until someone else whom he isn't accusing of being your sockpuppet weighs in] needed a response, but if you really want to continue discussing this (and I should be clear -- I don't think you do) we should take it to your talk page or mine. Otherwise, we shoule just stop this. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:33, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring

AffeL has removed my warning on his talk page with the very untrue comment "2 reverts is not an edit warning". AffeL is aware of the rules, having been blocked for breaking them in the past. Per WP:3RR, "editawrring" is not defined as "three reverts"—"three reverts" is defined as the bright-line rule under which the warring editor will be blocked. Of course, an editor can be blocked for as few as one revert. AffeL has a history of editwarring on this page. This behaviour should be examined.

Until then: I will now revert AffeL's edit until a consensus is reached whether to restore it. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:46, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. He's been subtly implying every time I broach the subject that since I am subject to 1RR and he is not, it would be impossible for him to edit-war with me as I would have violated 1RR before he got close to 3RR. This gross misunderstanding of our edit-warring policy, particularly from someone who was once indeffed for repeated edit-warring and only unblocked a year later based on WP:STANDARDOFFER and WP:ROPE, is absolutely unacceptable. I will be filing an ANI thread on this and his various other abuses shortly, but until then more eyes on this article in particular are appreciated. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:53, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

You two are like best friends or something, always on the same side, editing the same pages. Wont suprise me if its the same person behind the computer. - AffeL (talk) 23:58, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

@AffeL: You should strike the above sockpuppetry accusation, and apologize to me and Curly Turkey. Sockpuppetry accusations made without evidence are highly inappropriate. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:17, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Go through my 24 FAs and 32 GAs and see how many Hijiri has contributed to (hint: zero). Yeah, we're "always ... editing the same pages", ain't we? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:02, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

(Edit conflict. Haven't read CT's comments yet, but indented to avoid confusion.) AffeL, come on. Per WP:LEAD, nothing can be in the lead that isn't also verified in the body, and the "role model" thing is specifically about him being a role model for people who share his condition (dwarfism), as stated in the body. Either you find a source that says his role model-ness has nothing to do with dwarfism, add that to the article, and remove the reference to his being a role model for people who share his condition from the body, or your most recent edit is still a violation of the previously-established consensus and is just more edit-warring. You're actually at 3RR now, so if CT or someone else reverted you again and you reverted back, you would have been edit-warring even by your super-narrow wikilawyer-ish definition.

By the way: If you look at the history of CT's talk pages, you will see that I recommended he watch GOT some months back, during a discussion of something completely different (in which we were technically on the same side, but everyone else was too), and he hadn't edited any of these pages before that. If you look back to 2015, you will see that he and I actually rarely agreed on article content or Wikipedia politics minutiae, but we just happened to share the same (correct) understanding of policy, specifically how to interpret sources. If you want to see us having a serious disagreement, check the history of Talk:Debito Arudou or his early interactions with Nishidani. CT and I actually both came into contact with you independently, him on this page and me on the GOT page (although I was actually aware of your disruptive edits, without knowing that you were the one who made them, months before -- I posted a few times about the sudden creation of a whole bunch of article on non-notable GOT characters long before realizing that they were all created by the same person).

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:12, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

The sources says that he is a role model. Just like we don't need to add why?, we also do not need to add for who he is a role model for. Also the last one is not a revert, because I completely changed and removed the part that was a problem according to the RFC. - AffeL (talk) 00:21, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

You have to understand that, if you nominate an article to be an FA, and one user recommends you duplicate something in the lead that is in the body, and another user recommends you find a source for that content after the first user has already supported the nomination, you can't just blank the material without notifying the first commenter that one of the conditions of their support is now no longer met. You have now removed material that you couldn't find support for at least four times (you removed the claim that Pixels was a box-office success, you removed the bit about him turning down degrading roles, you removed his class year and club activities from the early life section, and now you have removed the bit about him being a role model specifically for people with dwarfism from the lead). FAs need to be comprehensive in their coverage, well-sourced, and not subject to edit-wars. If the only way you can meet the first of these crtiteria (as determined by FAC commenters) is by ignoring the second and vice versa, and the only way you can meet either is by reinserting material that was removed as a preventative measure because edit wars some time ago (thus likely provoking further edit-warring), then you simply are not the one to bring this article to FA standard. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:32, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

That's how FAC work, people give different takes on how they want the article to be. So some minor stuff gets changed, nothing really major. Their is no point to be nitpicking. The him being a role model "specifically for people with dwarfism from the lead" is removed for now, until other give their take on it. I'm sure it will be added back soon enough. - AffeL (talk) 00:39, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Take it from someone who has 24 FAs and has done scores of FAC reviews—this is not how FAC works. Now show your good faith and remove this problematic WP:POINT-y edit and do not re-add it until explicit consensus that the issues are resolved. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:42, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

• @Curly Turkey: Would you mind undoing this edit? I've already tried lecturing AffeL about addition of sources that have no relation to the content to which they are attached, and in fact reverted this exact same nonsense citation eleven days ago and AffeL is apparently hoping I don't remember. But I'm at one-revert for this article for another eleven hours or so. Honestly, I think reverting AffeL's edits on articles related to Game of Thrones should probably be formally declared an exception to 1RR, but then the amount of trouble necessary to get that exception put in place would probably be bigger than just getting the community to slap AffeL with 1RR himself. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:52, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

What's wrong with the source? The text says "Dinklage has been viewed as a role model for people sharing his condition" and the source says "Despite often being held up as a role model for actors and other people with physical challenges, he insists he is 'not out to change people's perception'" - AffeL (talk) 21:02, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

The source acknowledges that he has been called a role model, but it doesn't agree with this assessment. Assuming this is a case of your English proficiency getting in the way of your editing (I already have reason to believe you have trouble with adversative conjunction), I won't push the issue further than it needs to go, but put plainly the original source is fine as it is: adding another source that by itself doesn't actually agree with our assessment is essentially saying the opposite of what the source says. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:56, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

• Crystallizedcarbon has reverted the edit. I wouldn't've anyways—AffeL should be reported and blocked for this ceaseless behaviour. Stop wasting time trying to "reason" with them. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:01, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Lol.. I should be reported for what? Adding reliable sources to this article? It's kind of obvious that you and Hijiri 88 are the same person. I mean, It's weird seeing you talk to yourself. - AffeL (talk) 23:41, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

@AffeL: My stating below that you were accusing me and CT of sockpuppetry was in reference to your post further up this thread, and I actually totally missed the latter part of your comment. (I guess my AGF-mind blocks out all the really bad stuff people write on these talk pages.) You should, of course, strike the above comment as well. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:52, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

You are edit-warring, wikilawyering over the "definition" of edit-warring, accusing other editors of sockpuppetry without evidence, adding unsourced claims, adding citations that contradict our content (even if said content is already reliably sourced)... and that's just in the extremely narrow spatial and temporal window of this one talk section. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:17, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I can't believe you're responding to this trolling with a straight face, Hijiri. Seriously, AffeL crossed the "bad faith" line long ago. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:32, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Generally I would say that Hijiri is doing the right thing because when this goes to a noticeboard it is best if others have not fallen for the trolling because a bad reaction to nonsense causes onlookers to think the blame must be spread evenly. Also, there is a very faint hope that AffeL would absorb proper procedures and start participating constructively. However, at this stage I agree that responding at all is a waste of time—consensus is clear and so long as everyone remains calm there is no problem. Johnuniq (talk) 04:18, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Should wikipedia cite denied reports?

Under personal life the page currently cites "Their daughter's name has not been revealed publicly, though Dinklage has denied media reports that the girl's name is "Zelig"." This is written as if him denying a possible name makes it likely to be true. If there is no credible evidence to the contrary (and if there is I'd still say leave it out out of respect for Dinklage), shouldn't wikipedia assume it's not Zelig and not mention it at all? I feel the only way this should be mentioned is if it's a widely held belief his daughter is called Zelig, in which case it could say something like "It is widely believed his daughters name is 'Zielig', but Dinklage has denied this." Which would assume truthfulness and its purpose would be to refute a misconception. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huntracony (talk • contribs) 15:54, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Taxi film (German)

Dinklage was in a 2015 German film called Taxi. It's notable if only for the fact that he spoke German throughout. I'm a big fan of his and wouldn't have known he spoke German if not for stumbling across the movie on "popcornflix." Most of the external reviews are in German, but there's a bare-bones, English-language IMDB site for the film: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3660078/

Adeepermystery (talk) 01:03, 13 September 2017 (UTC)Adeepermystery

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Peter Dinklage. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.deadline.com/2013/12/sag-awards-2013-nominations-full-list/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040914213145/http://romanticmovies.about.com/cs/thestationagent/a/stationagentpd.htm to http://romanticmovies.about.com/cs/thestationagent/a/stationagentpd.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130508212235/http://www.playboy.com/playground/view/20q-peter-dinklage-game-of-thrones to http://www.playboy.com/playground/view/20q-peter-dinklage-game-of-thrones

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 09:21, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Middle name?

In the article lead, it says "Peter Hyden Dinklage" and everywhere else it says "Peter Hayden Dinklage". Is this a typo, or is there a reference somewhere? (oh hi nitpicker person me) Sophoife (talk) 04:14, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Other Work

Pete also had a supporting role in The Angriest Man in Brooklyn, in which he played the brother of Robin Williams's title character. The cast also includes Mila Kunis and Melissa Leo, with cameos by other notable actors, e.g. James Earl Jones and Richard Kind. (This is by no means a comprehensive cast list--it's been several months since I saw the film on DirecTV's Audience channel.) I have no citations, as this is my first post and I am unsure of protocol, but Dinklage's performance should be noted.Nerdianda (talk) 03:24, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Mention of dwarfism in the lead

Hello,

There was a much attended discussion above which resulted on consensus for the mention of dwarfism in the introduction. This mention was removed from the current version of the article's lead. Is there an obvious reason for this omission? Otherwise I (or another editor) would feel free to add it back. Place Clichy (talk) 16:53, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Place Clichy, I noticed this was missing too, despite the RFC outcome. It should be restored. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:17, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

@Erik: I restored the mention agreed upon in the RFC. Place Clichy (talk) 15:12, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

He is vegan now

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QKWKUU0XQ8U So the part saying he is vegetarian should be changed to state the fact he is vegan! The video shows he is against the typical "animal products" vegans complain about (excluding the 100s of ones he uses he is ignorant about).--CuriousQuestions (talk) 00:47, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

(Semi)Famous Brother - Jonathan Dinklage

His brother, Johnathan is mentioned as being a violinist. Recently he has been playing with Rush and several other big acts, he even featured in the recent Rush biopic. Perhaps he deserves either a bigger mention here or even a link to his own page.User4114 (talk) 14:39, 23 August 2019 (UTC)Jack

Semi-protected edit request on 12 October 2019

His years active info needs to be changed from 1995 to 1991. He began his career after he graduated from college in 91 according to his "Early life" info. As shown here: "1991–present". 2600:1000:B015:D8C4:42C:BCC:4382:444C (talk) 02:57, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Not done: His first credited role was in 1995. There is no need to include the years when, the article says, he had difficulty finding work as an actor. General Ization ^Talk 03:01, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 October 2019

In his "Early career (1991–2002) " section, it needs to be fixed as "Early career (1995–2002)". Because that is when his career began, in 1995. 2600:1000:B05C:4806:D0FC:8B5E:81BD:8964 (talk) 13:40, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:56, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

is he 4'5" or 4'4"?

"Born in Morristown, New Jersey and raised in Brookside, Dinklage self-identifies as a dwarf (achondroplasia) and stands 4 ft 5 in (1.35 m) tall. "

"Height 4 ft 4 in (132 cm)[1][2]"

Two different heights on the same page. I have no comment on the "should height be included" question, but I think we can all agree that if height is included it should be the same number every where it is mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dpeifer (talk • contribs) 21:12, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

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)

References

• 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)

• Asking persistent questions about Wikipedia policies while ignoring the Wikipedia Policy pages - WP:USERGENERATED, WP:RS, WP:SEALION, WP:SOAPBOX, WP:UNDUE. WP:OR - that have already been provided for answers might be bad faith. See also WP:POLICY, WP:CPP, WP:AGF and WP:AAGF. Kire1975 (talk) 03:51, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm going to spell out a few things about the section you keep adding. Much of this has already been explained.

• Firstly, I've already explained that "Controversy" sections are not good practice.
• "A thing to be noticed" - this is editorializing.
• "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." Where is the source for this comparison? It looks very like original research.
• "This move has been criticized by people and fans" - What people? What fans? What makes the opinion of these people notable? Wikipedia is not interested in unattributed opinions.
• The references you are using are best placed directly after what they are being used to cite. Using six references in a cluster at the end of the section is not helpful.
• "The Alteran" is user generated material and an anonymous opinion piece. It is not a reliable source.
• If the Daily Mail is not an acceptable source, then a sources that use the Daily Mail as a source, as Bounding Into Comics and The Ateran does, are no better.

There might be a case for inclusion here, but not in the manner or wording you are using. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:51, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

• The people (including dwarf/little people) and fans on social media/Internet plus the articles written to prove the reaction? Wasn't that obvious? And I'd like to know what's the case (wording/manner) that would make sources like "Bounding Into Comics" acceptable to be included, because I always considered it a reliable source for what concerns media and pop-culture (and I still think it is). What's the problematic manner/wording I'm using that makes it unacceptable specifically? I can't go with guessing, I need you to be more specific and clear, considering that I'm risking here. I know "Daily Mail" is not acceptable and it's even deprecated, I specified it before more than once, that's why I omitted it in the successive edits (though you could have tell me previously the specific reason why "The Alteran" is not a reliable source, and now I know). And it's true the obvious difference between the dwarfs/little people in real life and the Dwarfs in fantasy, it's a basic fact and a reason between the controversy created, that also ties with the bizzarre "cave"/"cavern" statement, there's nothing wrong specifying it, nothing "original", it's even important to highlight it, considering also that someone else did that already (is the starting phrase "A thing to be noticed" problematic? Fine, I'll try and find another way in alternative). I thought everything was settled. I thought I respected all the conditions to create the section (that I really want to create because it's a very important topic that can't be ignored). I thought everything was settled. I thought I respected all the conditions to create the section (that I really want to create because it's a very important topic that can't be ignored. Maybe I can put it as a voice or paragraph in the "Personal life" section, though I still think writing it as a distinct and proper section is the right way). Why is all this so difficult? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.44.95.125 (talk) 19:57, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

• Your first two questions have been asked and answered. Everything's already been perfectly clear. Regarding your allegation "you could have tell me previously the specific reason why "The Alteran" is not a reliable source," you were told here and here but you continued to add it three days later here. Your request in the edit summary to "let me know I'm wrong. Thanks again" is nice and polite but completely unnecessary since you were already made aware. This is called Civil POV pushing. See WP:CPP.
• Thank you for self-undoing the message you left on my talk page. My answers are "no, this is not a joke", if you think you received consensus and respected the conditions that were given to you, please state your reasons. Finally, yes I did read your edit summaries before deleting the controversy section that you re-added here. I suggest you do the same for our edits.
• Finally, why is all this so difficult? Nobody's forcing you to continue this WP:BATTLE. Regards, Kire1975 (talk) 01:03, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

• Actually, I already knew the reason "The Alteran" is not good, I explained before that I undersrood, so you probably didn't even read my previous message. And I still don't understand why there's an edit war in the first place, I'm not doing anything bad and try my best to do what I do and must be made within the respect of policies. I never had to fight like this for a "controversy" section about a celebrity, it's like you're doing everything in your power to keep me from putting this topic about Peter Dinklage's actions and the severe damage he's done to dwarf people who even publicly spoke out against him and that people around the world are still talking about (even other Wikipedias in other languages reported this fact). There shouldn't be even a edit war. That's the main reason of my insistence, and that's what I feared when I previously talked in this talk page about running into possible biases. I always try to satisfy your requests and ojections when I rewrite the piece within the respect of rules and policies, but everytime it got deleted and a new problem is presented that was not presented before and so on. Why can't you simply let me do what I believe it's right to do and should be done and then you correct where you think it really needs to be corrected without necessarily deleting everything and then talk about what can be improved or left deleted? Oh, by the way, I still didn't receive remaining responses regarding the very last message I left on this talk page before this last one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.18.39.109 (talk) 02:32, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

• Actually, the consensus by most editors is that your edit does not pass the bar necessary to include it in the article. I'm really not sure how removing some inline sources without fundamentally rewriting whatever you're trying to include as consensus to keep the contested edit in the first place. Claiming that <a thing that happened> as enough to merit its own inclusion (e.g. inaccuracy with cave stuff, dwarf actors complaining) without WP:RS is just WP:OR, especially with controversial subjects. Here's a hypothetical for you. What if <Notable Person> does something and a <Random person> complains about it but nobody covers the complaint. Does it merit inclusion by virtue of its own existence? (see WP:ENN). The original problems were that you 1. chose bad sources and 2. wrote non-neutrally. Unless you fix that, odds are that we can not, as a community, move forward with your edit. BriefEdits (talk) 04:07, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm trying my best, believe me. Now I have an idea, I'm going to list all the things we decided are not appropriated and then maybe we'll finally settle this disagreement. Let's begin. First, sources "Daily Mail", "The Alteran" and "Giant Freaking Robot" are deprecated/unrealiable/random according to English Wikipedia, "Bounding Into Comics" is still unclear and it depends on the context it is put as they told me. Second, these are the acceptable added sources or at least the ones that haven't been called out yet: "New York Times", "NPR", "Newsweek", "Movieplayer" (foreign), "News24" (foreign). Third, it's not acceptable to start a phrase with "a thing to be noticed". Fourth, instead of "Controversy" how about "Snow White controversy"? I think this could satisfy everyone. What do you think? Is what I listed right or there's something I missed or wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.36.4.237 (talk) 01:42, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

• Yes and no. Your current assessment of the sourcing makes sense, but I would suggest against a "Controversy" section per WP:UNDUE. It wouldn't make sense to make a big ol' section when it's not well covered and isn't really indicative of the subject, especially when it's about a "controversy". At this point, I don't see anything that would add to the article that the paragraph under "Dwarfism" doesn't have already. — BriefEdits (talk) 04:51, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

• "I feel like you're still not understanding what we're saying." NO, I don't know what you are saying and I'm getting very tired! Plus, you are the only one here who's giving me problems and continues to object and revert my edits! At this point I have to think this is personal! And I'm also pretty sure the "problem" was something that didn't require or justify the erasure of EVERYTHING I wrote! I explained what I changed and why, I tried again to satisfy you, with patience and politeness, so I really don't know what do you want from me!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.34.105.124 (talk) 10:59, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

• I'm simply not sure if you have reviewed any of the links that we have provided to you. At this point, I'd just suggest that you stop editing on this page entirely because they're simply not productive. You take the one or two acknowledgements of your basic understanding of policy as a green light to add the same (or near similar) block of information without consensus. The only defense I've seen from you is "that I really want to create because it's a very important topic that can't be ignored". At this point, I'm privy to agree with @Kire1975: and seek one of the remedies from WP:SEALION. — BriefEdits (talk) 19:20, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

• BriefEdits is not the "only one" objecting and reverting your edits. Kire1975 (talk) 20:24, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

• I said the only one because he is the one I'm arguing or discussing the most frequently with now, in fact I thought I didn't have any problem anymore with you Kire1975. And no, don't tell me I'm not considering anything you said, I removed all the problematic sources you listed and replaced them with others more reliable or added new to better validate phrases, facts and quotes, always slightly modified phrases and quotes to better reflect the sources and always tried to write them the most neutral way as possible within my possibilities, tried to compromise (especially for the title, and at this point it's clear it's useless to compromise for that), everything I wrote erased just for a few sources or even a phrase that could have been easily edited without reverting everything. How couldn't I be thinking I'm being fooled around and being victim of some sort of bias and not take this thing personally at this point? Why am I having all these difficulties to modify a person's/celebrity's article I never faced before like there's something special about this one? Why should I stop? I know I'm right and this discussion is getting really ridiculous and senseless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.18.86.170 (talk) 21:37, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

This matter is being discussed on ANI [[5]]. Kire1975 (talk) 00:50, 24 February 2022 (UTC) The page is semi-protected for a month now. Kire1975 (talk) 01:32, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

April 2022

The semi-protection has been over for a week and we've got a Civil POV pusher doing similar stuff with an IP account already. No way to tell if it's the same editor. FYI. Kire1975 (talk) 14:56, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Another one. Kire1975 (talk) 18:36, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Looks like there's another civil pov pusher IP account. Kire1975 (talk) 19:55, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Since the response from Disney has been written in form of a quote I think the statement from Peter Dinklage should be wrote as a quote too. Don't understand what's wrong with that, how could be considered this problematic or "vandalism"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.82.169.119 (talk) 23:26, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for finally bringing this to the talk page. Since you are an IP user, I have been unable to discuss this with you. Putting quotation marks around words doesn't make something a quote. It needs to be accurate, WP:VERifiable and WP:DUE. Try to avoid WP:ORIGINAL research. Thank you. Kire1975 (talk)

birth place

Can someone please cite the Britannica article in the birthplace infobox? Thetreehuggingjersey (talk) 01:07, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:BRITANNICA: There is no consensus on the reliability of the Encyclopædia Britannica (including its online edition, Encyclopædia Britannica Online). Encyclopædia Britannica is a WP:TERTIARY source. Most editors prefer reliable WP:SECONDARY sources.

WP:Interviews may sometimes be the best or clearest sources, especially for biographical or personal information. He says in his own voice in the citation provided that he was born in the Jersey Shore. That is quite far away from Morristown.

Kire1975 (talk) 05:07, 18 December 2022 (UTC)