Talk:Jeremy Strong

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Plagiarism

The current entry not only relies heavily on one source, it is word-for-word taken from the New Yorker profile in places. 173.8.31.161 (talk) 00:08, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Over-reliance on New Yorker profile

This article cites the New Yorker profile over 20 times, and seems to over-rely on that piece. Parts of the article simply re-state the profile, rather than provide basic biography. For example, there's a very lengthy section on "Acting philosophy and technique" which seems overly focused on this, while few other actors have such a section in their article. Really need to find more diverse and balanced sources for this biography. -- ZimZalaBim talk 00:56, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm not about to do it myself, but if anyone wants to tackle overhauling the section, here's two other articles that might be useful:
— Kawnhr (talk) 20:22, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 3 October 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved (closed by non-admin page mover) BegbertBiggs (talk) 23:04, 10 October 2023 (UTC)


– Clear primary topic by usage (13,000% more pageviews) and significance (Emmy etc. winner). No dab page needed. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 22:30, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

  • Move. Should be no need for full RM, but you could wait 24 hours to move both pages; do not delete the DAB page, but move it to Jeremy Strong (disambiguation). — HTGS (talk) 03:47, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
  • It's interesting that in this case WikiNav https://wikinav.toolforge.org/?language=en&title=Jeremy_Strong doesn't show such a clear picture like in those other few cases you nominated in the same go. The global ratio incoming to outgoing is at 52%, though it's still 354 vs one more entry that doesn't render so it sounds like a 10:1 still, or we're missing some other Jeremy Strong that an apparent minority of readers are looking for. --Joy (talk) 07:19, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Support, seems noncontroversial. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:30, 5 October 2023 (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.

"He has been recognized for his intense approach to the craft of acting"

...do we really want to say this – in the second sentence of the article? Gnom (talk) 19:39, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

While we’re at it, has he really been recognized for his involvement in films inspired by real-life events? — HTGS (talk) 05:28, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

What makes a good photo

On a recent article on Wikiportraits (https://www.engadget.com/entertainment/volunteer-photographers-are-fixing-wikipedias-terrible-celebrity-headshots-194454358.html) I put forth the view that certain photos are not desirable for wikipedia (such as the current image of Jeremy Strong) because they do not convey the wikipedia style as I interpret it. The current photo in particular looks like a studio shot that is designed to convey a certain persona that is usurping the wikipedia impartial view of the world and should be replaced. It suggests we have been taken over and corporatised. Here is what I wrote:

As a wikipedia editor i think it's important to remember that in some way wikipedia represents the viewpoint of the common man. It is not a direct participant at events but a mere spectator. As such the photos of celebrities looking directly into the camera feels inconsistent with this viewpoint. FWIW I would prefer to use photos for wikipedia that are more in the moment and not so staged. So sometimes a less perfect photo may be better if it is more real. It is also important not to flood Wikipedia with a particular style. Inconsistency is our style! The photo of Ben Stiller being interviewed is an example of a great photo for Wikipedia. It is not just about him but shows him (to a small extent) in his element of being a celebrity. NeedsGlasses (talk) 02:29, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

In this case the subject chose to look directly into the camera, that's fine (and entirely expected given circumstances). Other pictures will be taken at convention panels where the subject knows he or she is at a public event but isn't immediately aware of the picture being taken. I think the photo is fine and that our style is in no way threatened. But thank you for that article link; I've added it to the {{Press}} template. CapnZapp (talk) 13:45, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
@NeedsGlasses when you mention "Oh a recent article on Wikiportraits I put forth the view" you have a link, however the article linked does not mention any of the quoted text you included in your comment.
Where can I find your quoted text? JulioCesarSalad (talk) 14:34, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
My quote was just in the attached comments not in the article itself and I suspect the comments may have been on the wikiportraits.org web site but i can't seem to find them any more. NeedsGlasses (talk) 01:22, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI