Jump to content

Talk:Fernanda Torres

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

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fernanda Torres. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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) 00:57, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Excess of puffery

[edit]

The current lead section ([1]) incorporates an excess of unnecessary puffery and peacock terms, generally not even fully adherent to the wording of cited sources (but even if they were, there are still too many). Words and expressions to watch include "acclaimed", "iconic", "renowned", "widely recognized", "one of the most awarded" "[one of the most] influential", "global actress". Words such as these are often used without attribution to promote the subject of an article, while neither imparting nor plainly summarizing verifiable information. They are known as "peacock terms" by Wikipedia contributors. Instead of making subjective proclamations about a subject's importance, use facts and attribution to demonstrate it. A single statement with a claim directly attributted to the source, and with no WP:SYNTH involved, should suffice to characterize the subject's reputation.--Asqueladd (talk) 21:58, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to fix that by focusing on the actress's career and excluding those exaggerated adjectives.--Agent010 (talk) 00:42, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Agent010: I think that, generally speaking, your edit was the way to go (and a vast improvement over the questioned version), but it seems there is sadly some disruptive editing playing on here.--Asqueladd (talk) 10:09, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Asqueladd, thanks. Yeah, I think a page like this needs to follow some standard in the introduction, such as pointing out how the actor's career began, what relevant roles he/she has played, what relevant awards he/she has won. I did it, but someone reversed my intro, removing the sources and adding some unnecessary adjectives like "renowned". I prefer my version, but it seems the Administrators are not seeing it...--Agent010 (talk) 15:01, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Agent010: I concur. On a related note, when the dust settles and the article can move forward, I think that the accolades section could be enhanced with nominations received in her native country, most notably for the Grande Prêmio do Cinema Brasileiro.--Asqueladd (talk) 15:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Asqueladd, I agree. Well, I did it too (added the Grande Prêmio do Cinema Brasileiro), but I also got reversed because "intro should mention only major international accolades and been and brief as possible" hahahaha. See? :D --Agent010 (talk) 15:41, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Agent010: We are though editing in an area in which the hardcoding of an Anglo-centric bias is basically the daily business. As in you may discover that for some reason the national film award of Brazil may not be an award from a "major association" vis-à-vis the article about a Brazilian actress who has developed most of her career in the Brazilian film industry. Insane.--Asqueladd (talk) 15:52, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BLP violation

[edit]

Martineden83, the content was added on 27 January (less than a week ago) in a way that clearly violated WP:BLP. As it stands, it remains a BLP violation, and even worse, it has no relevance to the article; it seems to have fallen from the sky solely to tarnish the biography's subject. Based on WP:STATUSQUO, I am removing this passage and request that it not be reinstated, as that would indeed constitute an edit war—and in your case, you have already re-added this passage I don't know how many times (the IPs are not mine, as you might expect). RodRabelo7 (talk) 13:01, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Martineden73? @Martineden? RodRabelo7 (talk) 13:04, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The subject didn't came from nowhere, it was written direct upon Torres' statement about her blackface performance. But i don't really care if a consensus is reach upon if its need to be kept in the article or not. I'm only patrolling the page deleting puffery and troll editing crap.
RodRabelo7, these other user pages (@Martineden73? @Martineden) are not mine. I have no clue where did you dig this from. And both of them do not have a single edit in Torres's page. What are you trying to say? Martineden83 (talk) 13:11, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Martineden83, when I type "@Martineden" these accounts appear. Since they had neither a user page nor a user talk page, I did not know if they were recent accounts and, if they were yours, whether they were still active and should be notified. In any case, back to the topic—was there consensus to add the content to the article? It seems like a trivial controversy that came up and has already passed. RodRabelo7 (talk) 13:17, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@RodRabelo7: An editor added that information there, in the "Personal life" section, then I moved it to "Career". But I also don't consider it necessary for this trivial controversy to be in the article. I support deleting that.--Agent010 (talk) 19:49, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The controversy receveid a lot of attention from international media ([2];[3];[4];[5]) and the actress herself made a public apology about it, so it is not a minor detail. Karla Sofía Gascón's recent controversies were also added to her article and I don't see users claiming people want to "tarnish" her biography, so there's no reason to remove the controversy from this article as well. Xuxo (talk) 22:39, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Xuxo, the case of Gascón is completely different from Torres's for several reasons. First, Torres's case, isolated, occurred in 2008; Gascón's case lasted until 2020, according to screenshots reported by newspapers. Torres's case involved blackface, for which she apologized, and I haven't seen any further repercussions. Gascón's case, on the other hand, borders on the absurd: Islamophobic, racist, homophobic, body-shaming, Catalanophobic, and Sinophobic, according to the article you hyperlinked, and the reactions continue, to the point that there is talk about her violating Oscar rules, as I recently read. Obviously, this is a false equivalence, which should never have been added to the article, let alone spark an unreasonable edit war like this, which should be reported to the administrators. Pinging Agent010. RodRabelo7 (talk) 23:26, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Karla Gascón's case had much more impact than Torres'. And we're talking about 2008, about an actress playing a role (Torres). Gascón did not do a "simple" act at such a distant time, when this type of subject was not so popular or talked about, mainly in Brazil when access to the internet's topics and agendas were not as common as they are now. We are talking about openly xenophobic, Islamophobic, prejudiced public comments and statements against different groups of people, in a much more recent time (2021!), including negative comments towards her current co-star (Selena Gomez) and the Academy.
If that's the case (talking about any "trivial" episode (I'm not softening it)), then add in Zoe Saldaña's article the "blackface" in Nina or even Demi Moore kissing a 15 year old boy.--Agent010 (talk) 00:07, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is the real problem here, you guys (@Agent010 and @Xuxo) are turning this page into an Award Season narrative-war. This is insufferable! Why compare Torres' blackface apologies with Karla tweets or any other actress controversies?
I will keep Xuxo editing for now, but any other attempt of turning Torres' page into a awards-campaign narrative discussion will be deleted. @RodRabelo7, thank you for trying to be constructive in this mess. Martineden83 (talk) 01:04, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I know this isn't the real problem here. Actually, it was Xoxo who brought up Karla's case, check it out! I brought Zoe and Demi's examples precisely because he brought Karla's (but with no intention of causing an "Award Season narrative-war", in my case). There is no comparison: Karla's case was much more impactful than any of the other three. Either we put all the trivia on Torres, Saldana and Moore, or we don't put it just in Torres' article. Like I said: I agree with RodRabelo7!--Agent010 (talk) 01:28, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fernanda_Torres&oldid=1273382920"