Talk:Chadwick Boseman/Archive 1

Archive 1

Semi-protected edit request on 29 August 2020

I request to add the cause of death (colon cancer) to his identification box. Jmckinney25 (talk) 03:17, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done My dude, I gotchu! GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 03:21, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 August 2020

It says 'ans' instead of 'and' under death Hayleysellick (talk) 03:55, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

 Fixed. Wyliepedia @ 03:58, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Rowspans

RE: My reversion of an anon-IP's edit today: Rowspans are generally deprecated for accessibility reasons, particularly on mobile platforms, as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Data tables tutorial#Summary. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:13, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

birthdate error?

Chadwick A. Boseman is 36 now, born 1976.[1] Justme038 (talk) 16:56, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Public records list Chadwick Boseman as born in November 1976. Many newspapers have listed his correct age (36 throughout most of 2013 and 37 throughout most of 2014). All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 05:07, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Seems right. A recent GQ magazine about "style at any age" had Blake Griffin (25), Boseman (37), Norman Reedus (45), Clive Own (50), and Tom Selleck (69) as cover boys. All the other ages are correct, so there's no reason to think Boseman's isn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.160.130.14 (talk) 23:12, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

The WP:RS site Biography.com gives only 1977. We can't really go by uncited claims of "public records", and certainly not on a WP:BLP issue. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:11, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I honestly don't know why you keep claiming Biography.com is somehow a more reliable source than others. Frankly, it's terrible and often highly inaccurate.Krychek (talk) 15:57, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

On what do you base that claim? It seems to be your personal opinion and not something in a journalistic article. By Wikipedia standards, a TV network devoted to biography and biographical research, part of one of the largest media conglomerates in the country, with a professional staff of researchers and editors, is unquestionably WP:RS for biographies. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:48, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

A Variety interview published this year (http://variety.com/2018/film/features/black-panther-chadwick-boseman-ryan-coogler-interview-1202686402/) says he is 41. You cannot seriously put Biography.com, which has had no direct contact with the man, ahead of a respected magazine that conducted a personal interview. Krychek (talk) 16:55, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Variety did not give a birth date, so we cannot cite it for a birth date. As for claims about 1976, we address that in footnote #2. When reliable sources disagree we give both -- and Biography.com, which consensus discussion determined is usable, is the only source here that gives a date. Do not unilaterally go against consensus. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:21, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

A very lengthy discussion was held at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard here and no consensus was reached that Biography.com was not a reliable source. It is the only RS source that gives an actual birth date. If editors persist in removing the only RS cite in this WP:BLP that gives a birth date — and doing so in contradiction of a lengthy Noticeaboard discussion that found that cite appropriate — then that is a serious violation of policy. Reopen a Noticeboard discussion. Start an RfC. But summarily removing the only RS cite that gives a birth date is not the way we do things. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:47, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, one note from that discussion shows that The Times of London, one of the world's most respected newspapers, as well as the New York State Library and American Library Association consider Biography.com RS:

• "The ten best reference websites" The Times: #2: biography.com
• "Selected Biography Resources" New York State Library
• "This extensive site is the perfect source for anyone looking for background or historical and biographical information." American Library Association.

So removing it under a claim of "not RS" is unsupportable.--Tenebrae (talk) 17:03, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Having just read through that noticeboard discussion, it also needs to be said that there is no consensus that biography.com is a reliable source. The discussion didn't come to a consensus either way. There's clearly some strong views involved on both sides. I've made reverts to the page to restore the 1976 birth year based on the sources that were listed, which didn't include the biography.com source, so I make no apologies for that, but I have no opinion on the wider discussion at present.

However, given that we have one source stating 1977 and several indicating 1976, would it be acceptable to put his year of birth as circa 1976-7? At the moment we have confusion between several different sources. Until there's some actual consistency or a particularly authoritative source, like an authorised biography, it makes sense to me to err on the side of caution (particularly bearing WP:BLPPRIVACY in mind) and compromise. Thoughts? Marianna251TALK 17:36, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

That seems viable, and it's something done at, for example, Mariah Carey, where there is discrepancy between 1969 and 1970

I would note that sources that meets the overall definitions at WP:RS are considered reliable unless consensus arises otherwise. We cannot use non-RS sources.

If other editors agree with User:Marianna251's suggestion, I'd be happy to implement the coding, having done it before. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:50, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Can we just move on to the right side of history and skip everything else? Reliable sources + public records already list the correct year, 1976. Why waste everyone's time on the wrong one? All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 20:05, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Can we at least all agree to discuss here instead of making further changes to the article? I've already requested semi-protection because the IP disruption was getting ridiculous; let's not continue it. On the topic at hand: aside from biography.com, the only sources I've seen which allude to Boseman's year of birth are ones which give his age at the time of the source's publication, meaning that they don't state his birth year but instead give it by inference. The biography.com reference seems to be the only one (that I've seen, at least) which gives a specific year. Public records are specifically prohibited for use within BLPs (see WP:BLPPRIMARY), so that's out - could you let me know what other sources are you referring to? Marianna251TALK 21:35, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

That's a significant point, that only Biography.com gives an actual date; otherwise, we're extrapolating, which is WP:SYNTH. I suspect that the 1976 date in some publications was simply picked up from IMDb — which has since been changed to 1977, I suspect (though obviously we can't be certain) by Bosewick's people themselves. Also, I have to say, "right side of history" is overstating it a tad.--Tenebrae (talk) 22:18, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, I disagree that it's SYNTH. We're not moving beyond what is in the source, just phrasing it in a different way. Beyond that, it's general academic and Wikipedian common practice to infer birth year from an age at a given date for a large number of historical figures - due to high infant mortality, most people simply didn't turn up in the historical record until they appear as fully-grown adults. I know that's not relevant in this case, but it demonstrates the general acceptability of the process. There's even a template for it.

And yes, "right side of history" does seem a bit silly. :) Actually, where does the 29 November date of birth come from? I vaguely recall seeing a source for it, but it's late and my brain is protesting my attempts to recall. Marianna251TALK 23:39, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, indeed! That template is used at Boyd Holbrook for example. This infobox template then generates an approximate age.

So for Bosewick, the infobox would be "{{Birth date and age|1977|11|29}} or {{Birth based on age as of date|37|2014|10|29}} (sources differ)". This format is used at Mariah Carey, Mick Mars, Ric Ocasek and other celebrities with differing birthdates. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:08, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Sounds good to me - and hopefully it will stop the constant changes to the article. Are you still happy to make the change? Marianna251TALK 22:33, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes. I think given the facts we have consensus. If not, anyone please feel free to revert and we can discuss it further.--Tenebrae (talk) 22:38, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

A blocked user, 174.105.159.86, had changed it back to a non-consensus version. I've restored the status quo giving both dates and multiple citations, pert WP:BLP--2604:2000:1382:C5DD:3863:E58D:43E4:5D97 (talk) 16:11, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Biography.com no longer gives Nov. 29 but just a year, 1977. I found an RS cite for Nov. 29, 1976, and added it. The facts remain the same as in the consensus above -- I've just updated the citing and removed the now-obviated ABC and Hollywood Reporter links that gave an age and approximate year. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:05, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

@Tenebrae: I have found three sources each from Google Books, KGMI and Inquisitr respectively, and they all claim Boseman's year of birth is 1976. I also find this source from United Press International reliable. However, I'm not sure if Bigraphy.com is reliable -- but that doesn't mean I think 1977 is the incorrect birth year. Therefore, I provided sources each from The Hollywood Reporter and The Post and Courier, both of which claim 1977 to be Boseman's birthyear. Nevertheless, one of these years is the correct birth year, which is why I'd like to invite @Muzilon: to this discussion, since Muzilon has been known for resolving these kind of BLP discussions (e.g. Talk:Paul Winfield#Birth year, Talk:Natalia Dyer#Date of birth). Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 22:30, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

I guess I'm kinda late to the party, but I'm afraid I haven't found any new sources to confirm (or deny) the 1976/1977 birth year. We got lucky with Natalia Dyer because we found a contemporary newspaper birth notice (no such luck with Mr Boseman), and for deceased persons (like Paul Winfield) we can check Social Security records – which is not possible for a living person. Muzilon (talk) 07:54, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for trying, Muzilon. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 18:23, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Cool. Not sure how WP:RS Inquisitr is. Biography.com is RS; there was a whole discussion about it one or two years ago, and the RS Hollywood Reporter agrees with 1977. It'd be nice if Boseman would just stop being cagey about it. And while one of these years probably is true — since he's being cagey, who knows if it's 1975 or 1974 — it's POV to choose either 1976 or 1977 when equally RS sources give two different years. See Mariah Carey or Lil' Kim, for example. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:57, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

@Hitcher vs. Candyman: I made some edits just now, and they are all purely formatting and MOS-related, with no content change.--Tenebrae (talk) 16:12, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

The New York Times gives Nov. 29, 1976, in their obituary today (29 Aug 2020). If the NYT is a reliable source that would settle it. Is NYT a reliable source? Nick Beeson (talk) 18:48, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Also the Independent Mail, his hometown newspaper also says he was 43, meaning the 29 November 1976 birthdate is correct. In their coverage, the Independent Mail quotes their photographer who remembers Boseman as a high school student in the 1990's and reprints a photo from 1994 with a caption from that time. It is likely a newspaper that has covered him since he was 15 got his birth day correct. Is that reliable? Nick Beeson (talk) 19:25, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Yep, we've now reached a conclusion that it's Nov 29, 1976. Please look at the dates the previous posts were made and you'll see that they didn't have much information before his passing. ping me when responding, gràcies! TheKaloo talk 20:30, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

1977 is the most accepted year of Chadwick Boseman's birth on the Internet

Who agrees with me that 1977 is the year that Chadwick Boseman was born? Say "yes" if you do. Say "no" if you don't. Emotioness Expression (talk) 11:35, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

We follow the reliable sources. This is not a voting system. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:36, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

I know. I know I'm aware that voting doesn't work here, but hey, I have to. Emotioness Expression (talk) 11:52, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

So you think 1977 is the correct year? --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:55, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, at least, according to the Internet. Emotioness Expression (talk) 12:38, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Internet gives 1976 doesn't it? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:41, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

No. Emotioness Expression (talk) 02:07, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes [2]. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:12, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

As does the mainstream-published Historical Dictionary of African American Cinema and United Press International. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:42, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Just to clarify I am not saying that 1976 is right. Just that people can easily provide a source for it. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:49, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely. When reliable sources disagree, as they sometimes will, we include both. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:05, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Voting records in New York and California both give the 1976 date.--24.148.15.213 (talk) 02:27, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

His birth year is 1977 and was known as that everywhere for YEARS. Suddenly it's changed everywhere to November 29th, 1976. And not just in one place, but practically everywhere on the internet including articles that hadn't been updated in YEARS, but they were updated JUST to change his birthdate? C'mon.98.4.103.242 (talk) 13:01, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 August 2020

Change year of born to 1977 instead of 1976 He was 42 when passed away. IMDB is a good proof so there is the link to is page https://m.imdb.com/name/nm1569276/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_0 24.200.27.247 (talk) 03:51, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

No. IMDB is not a reliable resource. Press Reports are saying he was 43. this one.Crboyer (talk) 03:56, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

So is Wikipedia not a reliable resource either? Because for YEARS it listed his birth date here as November 22nd, 1977, and suddenly the date changes the moment he dies. Multiple media outlets also reported his age as 42 when he died, then changed it. Why? Everybody somehow discovered a birth certificate nobody else had seen or knew about for years? And many stars have handlers that edit their Wiki pages and I doubt his situation was any different. So for all of these years that was missed, but just now the correct date surfaced right when he died? C'mon. 98.4.103.242 (talk) 13:09, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia in not considered a "reliable source". Wikipedia states explicitly that it is a tertiary source, and thus not to be used as a reference to support facts. Nick Beeson (talk) 19:32, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

^^^ Being a tertiary source is not the same thing as being an unreliable source. However, your post raises an important question: What is truly a "reliable source" in this context? Since practically the entire media decided to change Boseman's birth year only after he died (and this can be seen in articles that hadn't been updated in years, but suddenly updated the hour his death was announced, and with no other edits being made to those articles) it calls into question the reliability of the so-called reliable sources who have been doing it. Granted, those sources were questionable long before this, but the current matter does nothing to help their collective image. 98.4.103.242 (talk) 17:15, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 August 2020

He was 42, not 43 at the time of his death. 2600:1700:8DB0:2680:D086:8AEA:4DCB:BB20 (talk) 04:39, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done Even if this is true, we need a valid source. You've provided none. Therefore, your request is rejected. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 05:43, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Removal of " Historical Dictionary of African American Cinema" as a reliable source

Numerous dates in this book are wrong; I only looked for five minutes but found it says that Roscoe Lee Browne was born 1925 instead of 1922, it says the movie "42" staring Chadwick Boseman was released in 1913 instead of 2013 (then correctly lists the release date the second time). I think these two examples show that it is far too unreliable as a source. Sorry I don't really know how to wiki, just thought this should be changed. StanleyShunpike (talk) 07:21, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 August 2020

Chadwick Boseman died at the age of 42, not 43. Many news sources are inaccurately stating he was 43. But if you calculate from his date of birth, he had not turned 43 yet this year. 73.157.40.159 (talk) 08:08, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Multiple reliable sources show that he was 43 years old. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:28, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

@Lugnuts: It's probably time to add an FAQ at the top of this talk page to deter this being repeated so much. Kingsif (talk) 11:23, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 August 2020

Chadwick was Born in 1977, NOT 1976. This has been facted checked 2600:1000:B025:C084:65B3:FF4D:D502:2559 (talk) 10:49, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done Please provide that factcheck (and it must be a WP:RS) if you want to have it changed. ping me when responding, gràcies! TheKaloo talk 14:54, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Age and birthday

I've been reading several sources that say he was either born in 1976 or 1977 and that he was either 42 or 43 when he died.

Which is true?

MikaelaArsenault (talk) 12:22, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm almost sure he was born 29 November, but I'm not entirely sure whether its 1976 or 1977. No WP:RS have published his birthday I think, but my guess is 1976, but thats my WP:OR so it's to be taken with a grain of salt. ping me when responding, gràcies! TheKaloo talk 14:52, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Here is a RS that says his birthday was in 1976. Most sources say he was 43. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 15:01, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

This RS was a feature for his birthday in 2019, saying he turned 42 (it's all about that and the film 42, so I imagine it has to be correct or a big retraction would have happened already), so he would have been born in 1977. Kingsif (talk) 15:07, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

@Editorofthewiki and Kingsif: thanks, I couldn't find that. Also, ping me when responding, gràcies! TheKaloo talk 20:21, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

As someone commented in June above, social security records can become public after a person's death. Death certificates are also public records, so it's likely there will be a definite answer provided soon. Whether we then include the full date or just the year and age at death is a question, since his actual birth date was not widely known in life. Kingsif (talk) 15:13, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I remember having a discussion about this years ago with someone. We were able to source the DOB through state records. Rusted AutoParts 16:42, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

It should be noted that the new NYT obit specifically says he was born in November 1976. Nohomersryan (talk) 17:02, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

He was also the lead item on the BBC's televised news (a real tribute already), and they went with 1976, too. Kingsif (talk) 17:30, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

This article says 1977.

https://www.wfxg.com/story/42562370/shock-grief-and-gratitude-after-death-of-chadwick-boseman

MikaelaArsenault (talk) 17:56, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

In comparison to sources like NYT and BBC it’s not that great. Again as I stated before years ago DOB was an issue and it was found via SC state records. Rusted AutoParts 19:13, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Link to said discussion. Rusted AutoParts 19:18, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Also for good measure, gonna @All Hallow's Wraith:. Rusted AutoParts 19:19, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

New York Times says Nov. 29, 1976.  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 20:08, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Okay, @MikaelaArsenault, TheKaloo, Editorofthewiki, Rusted AutoParts, and Nohomersryan: I am going to: 1. use 1976 in the article, 2. add a footnote in the article to say sources conflict but the most reliable and contextually relevant (e.g. from his hometown) agree on 1976, 3. add a FAQ to the top of the talk page with details from this and the linked talk, and 4. archive all the requests relating to this issue. Any other suggestions? Kingsif (talk) 21:05, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Sounds good. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:07, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Yep, makes sense to me. It's better than the "dubious" tagging anyhow (since conflicting sources aren't really dubious). Nohomersryan (talk) 21:13, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Great, thanks. Hopefully it will stop the IP's from changing it. ping me when responding, gràcies! TheKaloo talk 23:04, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 August 2020

Bozeman was born in 1977, NOT 1976.

Bozeman graduated High School in 1995 -- putting him at the age of 17. Loganrunn (talk) 01:30, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

The press is reporting his age as 43. What sources do you have? Besides, some people graduate at 18. Crboyer (talk) 01:38, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Many sources state he died at age 43, and his birthday was November 29, 1976. With his later birth date, he could've started school later and it's possible he was born in 1976 (as most sources state) and graduated in 1995. Technically, he'd still be 18 when he graduated.

Update on 1977 is the most accepted year of Chadwick Boseman's birth on the Internet

Last month (July), I made a section called "1977 is the most accepted year of Chadwick Boseman's birth on the Internet". In it, I said that 1977 is the year that Chadwick Boseman was born. However, I began to get replies about his death. I was made aware of it but didn't admit it until now. What's even more significant is regarding the year of his birth. After his death, finally, the year of his birth is settled to 1976. I wanna take a moment to remember him about all the movies he was in. Until then, I'll leave you with my personal sayings: His death led us to finally settled to 1976 and I'm grateful for that. Emotioness Expression (talk) 04:11, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 August 2020

Add in the Los Angeles area alongside his wife and family. Scohen337 (talk) 02:42, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done Nah. Bring a source and maybe though. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 02:44, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Death

New to Wikipedia editing and I don't want to mess anything up. I can't find an official website but when I Google "Chadwick Boseman official website" his Facebook page (verified) is the first result. This link is to the announcement from his family, friends or manager (whoever is running the account on his behalf currently) on his page. I don't know if Facebook can be counted as a legitimate source or not. I feel like it should be since he doesn't appear to have a website and it's his official page, but hopefully someone with more Wikipedia experience can make that decision instead. RGSN (talk) 02:40, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

And why would we worry about using using a FaceBook page as a source when we have independent reliable secondary sources that already tell us that he died, where he died, when he died, and what he died of? Is there something on the FacBook page that we don't already ahve a source for? Meters (talk) 02:49, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

@Meters:When I came to this page, the death was only one sentence (now two). It's confirmation from an official source (news stories have been wrong in the past) and mentions that "He died in his home, with his wife and family by his side." I wasn't certain if it was helpful, hence posting it here on the Talk page. If it isn't useful, ignore it. RGSN (talk) 02:54, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

@Meters: A primary source has certain value that secondary sources don't, although we'd always back up that claim with secondary evidence. Including it using in-line attribution would be fine (Boseman's family announced his death on Facebook, posting...). Also, WP:DBN. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 02:55, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

@ItsPugle: Thanks for the info about in-line attribution! RGSN (talk) 03:02, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 August 2020

Please Change "On August 28, 2020, at age 43, he died following a four-year battle with colon cancer." to "On August 28, 2020, at age 43, he died following a four-year battle with colon cancer. It was informed on His Instagram and Twitter handles. " Surajujgouda (talk) 02:52, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Kinda done. Not added to the lead, but the means that it was announced (Facebook and Instagram after press speculation) has been added to Chadwick Boseman § Death. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ItsPugle (talk • contribs) 03:05, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

References

Boseman had not spoken publicly about his battle with cancer until news of his death was released

"Boseman had not spoken publicly about his battle with cancer until news of his death was released on August 28, 2020."

This makes it seem as though he spoke publicly about it after his death... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jizzflinger9000 (talk • contribs) 04:02, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Early life

The section lists Wakanda as a country that DNA profiling points to re:ancestry. Is there a reason to include this? Aside of course from the possibility of character-tribute for his MCU portrayal. Jlabes (talk) 04:09, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Nevermind, already gone. Jlabes (talk) 04:10, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Married to: Taylor Simone Ledward Roots appear to miss Yoruba: "His ancestral roots traced to Krio people from Sierra Leone, Yoruba people from Nigeria and Limba people from Sierra Leone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.33.61 (talk) 04:27, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

References

Wasn’t it stage3

It was stage 3 colon cancer Colin Zhong (talk) 02:58, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Stage iv www.polygon.com/platform/amp/entertainment/2020/8/28/21406382/chadwick-boseman-dead-age-43-black-panther-actor] Colin Zhong (talk) 03:02, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

It had progressed to stage four Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 03:02, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

"Chadwick was diagnosed with stage III colon cancer in 2016, and battled with it these last 4 years as it progressed to stage IV." - [3] --ΨΦorg (talk) 03:06, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Yeh but progressed to stage 4 recently ZacBonBon (talk) 06:36, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Picture change

Can someone change his main image to maybe this, i know its 6 years older but options are limited but i think most of us prefer that image over one where he is looking nowhere close to the camera with a water bottle and mic blocking his face, the best image is the one where the person is looking towards the camera as much as possible and of a very good quality--27.123.137.11 (talk) 04:10, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Make a Semi-protected edit request first bro. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 04:12, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

picture is already there, just inter change it.--27.123.137.11 (talk) 04:16, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

GreenFrogsGoRibbit, there is no requirement for a user to use the SPER template in order to suggest a change here. —valereee (talk) 12:06, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 August 2020

Please consider changing his character name from Tchalla to King Tchalla. It is important to make this distinction as he not only represented a nation that was super advanced, free, and fierce... he was their King. To not state that he is King is diminishing how important this role was for people to see a black king and a superhero.

Thank you 2600:8801:2200:10F:401D:B2FB:60CE:968 (talk) 15:04, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.

I understand your intentions- to make this happen, first please provide us where in this article it should be changed, which would need to be backed up with any instances of his fictional character name being used with the "king" title to establish notability. Thanks. Rainmentregal (User talk:Rainmentregal)15:46, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

The character was a prince before becoming a king. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:54, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, over the course of the films his title changed; but he was always T'Challa. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 17:05, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

A "Health And Death" section in his Personal Life?

Hi. I know he never publicly told about his cancer diagnosis, but I do remember reports of him going to the hospital and fans being worried about his "sickly" appearance. I'm wondering if perhaps we could put "Health" in the section about his death? [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clear Looking Glass (talk • contribs) 03:23, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I think most readers assume they can find a little health information in a subject's Death section; there's really no need to add Health and to the section heading. To me, at this point it doesn't do any good to rehash speculation about his weight loss, and the sources don't seem reliable anyway. Larry Hockett (Talk) 18:39, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Larry Hockett - Okay. Well, it seems like the article was updated to mention fans concerns on his health citing an "Insider" article (which I did post as one of the sources here). But adding any more references would be redundant. So I guess that sums up my edit request.

Semi-protected edit request on 29 August 2020

Please change under Death section:

From: "Boseman died at his home of complications related to colon cancer..." To: "Boseman died at his home as a result of complications related to colon cancer..." W1ndStrik3 YT (talk) 17:49, 29 August 2020 (UTC)w1ndStrik3

 Done ping me when responding, gràcies! TheKaloo talk 20:17, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Obituary-like?

There's a template message at the top of the "Response" section underneath the "Death" section which claims that the section reads like an obituary without much explanation as to how. I can't seem to find who put the message there but if they could explain their reasoning, it would be much obliged. Benmite (talk) 20:43, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Probably all the responses. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:49, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, too many responses without a real reason. Kingsif (talk) 20:58, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Most liked Tweet

https://deadline.com/2020/08/chadwick-boseman0-twitter-most-liked-tweet-ever-1203026947/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

Worth noting?★Trekker (talk) 22:48, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Definitely. I believe it takes the spot from Ariana Grande's tweet about Manchester in 2017, so it's been a while and may have beaten the record quicker. Kingsif (talk) 22:57, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

There is obvious vandalism on this page.

it says his ancestors were Wakandan as that is a.fictional country this is clearly untrue — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.107.172.172 (talk) 04:49, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this has already been removed, but the reference to Wakanda in the article currently is about his character as Black Panther. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 06:09, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

@ItsPugle: Maybe change "which focused on his character and his home country of Wakanda in Africa" to "and his character's home country"? RGSN (talk) 06:29, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

The edits saying his ancestors were Wakandan include this one. They've since been reverted. Crboyer (talk) 01:42, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 August 2020

Please can you check in? He was an African-American actor not an American actor. Is this a possible edit? Thank you so much. 142.165.105.98 (talk) 16:35, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done No. That’s not how the word is used in the lead. Trillfendi (talk) 16:38, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Lead Photo

2017 one looks more professional and better quality. It's also more recent.Blueshocker (talk) 22:09, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 August 2020

Chadwick Boseman (Black Panther Actor). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.19.59.30 (talk) 17:51, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:08, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 August 2020

You mention his death was compared to Kobe Bryant and Naya Rivera but you forgot to mention Pop Smoke. 2603:9001:1106:D200:E1BA:DB71:F64E:FD2D (talk) 16:30, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:33, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Also, see this removal of Pop Smoke mention, with edit reason. Kingsif (talk) 00:02, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 September 2020

In the last line of the biography for Chadwick Boseman, you have this "surprassing" in the last line above the movie list when it should be "surpassing". Pony Express1974 (talk) 02:58, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for that Pony Express1974. Curdle (talk) 08:06, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 September 2020

This is a terrible picture of King Chadwick Boseman. Please use a photo from the 2018 Academy Awards where he is regally dressed in Givenchy and he looks well, robust and handsome. CoralONE (talk) 22:30, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

CoralONE CoralONE (talk) 22:30, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. - FlightTime (open channel) 22:36, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Photo debate

I prefer the 2017 one.

• 
  Option 2016
• 
  Option 2017

Blueshocker (talk) 21:22, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

A photograph with a bottle and placard prominently in the foreground, and his face partially obstructed by a microphone is not preferred. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 05:51, 4 September 2020

His face is still see-able and looks more professional in the 2017 one Blueshocker (talk) 07:11, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

The 2016 photo is a terrible photo where he looks uncharacteristically dark and thin. The 2017 version at least shows saturated true color and vibrance. I prefer a photo from the 2018 Oscars, it is a true and more recent depiction of him. The current photo is depressing. CoralONE (talk) 22:46, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 September 2020

we should mention that he is black veyr important Chimedunk (talk) 15:43, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

The fact that he was African-American is mentioned repeatedly in the article.Crboyer (talk) 15:48, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Article improvement

The following discussion 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.

---

I just noticed that the lead had been greatly expanded, but also had a too long tag added. The lead seems suitable, if the article were fleshed out, especially the career section but also flesh out a legacy section since there's decent coverage of that. Is the user who expanded the lead planning on improving the article, because I wouldn't want to edit conflict if I start to get sources on Boseman's career and legacy? Kingsif (talk) 16:47, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Let the lead be at WP:STATUSQUO. The article body needs to be greatly expanded, with sources. That should be the priority, instead of unnecessarily bloating the lead with repeated info and mentioning every film appearance. The lead needs to be as concise as possible. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 16:53, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

There is no WP:STATUSQUO on the lead. Kingsif agrees with me that the expanded lead is suitable. This is not an "unnecessary bloat". It is not simply "repeated info" when the most important information is at the beginning for readers to see and then expanded upon in a later paragraph. It is also not "mentioning every film appearance" - it is mentioning all of his major roles, as the lead should. The lead needs to summarize all important information as concisely as possible. If we were making the lead as concise as possible, we could just say "Chadwick Boseman was an American actor" and leave it at that. But that wouldn't interest readers in reading the rest of the article.

The lead that Krimuk2.0 supports also leaves out many important details to readers. Why does it identify Black Panther as a superhero, but doesn't identify Jackie Robinson as a baseball player, James Brown as a singer, or Thurgood Marshall as a Supreme Court Justice? Readers may not know who these individuals are and this lets them know without having to leave Boseman's article to find out. It doesn't mention exactly which awards Boseman won at the NAACP Image Awards and Screen Actors Guild Awards. It removes the fact that he began playing Black Panther in 2016, which was the same year he was diagnosed with colon cancer. It also removes his time in the MCU, which was from 2016 to 2019. And it omits the fact that he was the first black lead in the MCU. To top it off, Krimuk2.0's supported lead contains contradictory information with the body. This lead says Boseman "began his career acting, directing, playwriting, and teaching in New York City", but the body says "he moved to Los Angeles to pursue his acting career".

I will gladly help with also fleshing out the article to make the improved lead more suitable. The guidelines suggest that a three or four paragraph lead is suitable to an article with more than 30,000 characters and we're progressing towards that length. Bluerules (talk) 18:15, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Bluerules, Your adding of usourced and false information to the lead is wrong and it makes no sense. His acting career did not begin on television according to the sources and the body of this Wikipedia article. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:16, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

You are not editing under the WP:AFG policy. According to the sources and the body of this article, his professional acting career did begin on television. The body of the article does not list or cite any professional stage productions he was part of. The first professional acting credit cited is Third Watch, a television role. Bluerules (talk) 17:01, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Then you have not read the sources or are misreading the article. What you just said is false. The article says, Third Watch was his first acting role in television, trying to read that as his first acting job is plain misreading. Before that he acted on stage, including winning a professional acting theater award. The sources list his multiple theater roles. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:58, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

What you just said is false. Originally, when you were trying incorrectly change the lead, the career section began with "Boseman got his first television role in 2003, in an episode of Third Watch." That was the first sentence and the first role cited. That reads as his first acting job to anyone correctly reading the article because that is his first acting job referenced. You were the one who added the stage information afterwards. However, simply because he acted on stage does not mean he was doing it professionally (i.e. getting paid). The award was because the theater he performed at was professional, but that does not mean he was a professional, union actor who could make a living from his stage roles. The article still establishes Third Watch as his first notable role (note that no specific theater roles are cited), the first role he would have been paid for, his first professional role, and therefore, his first true acting job. To establish that sentence as anything else is plain misreading. You have not read the sources or are misreading the article. Bluerules (talk) 16:39, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Your editing has been false all along, since all along you falsely misread first television role as first professional acting role (perhaps you don't bother to check what you write in sources, when you really must, so you don't write false things about recently dead people). Your claim about acting in professional theater but not being professional is just nonsense, if you are are not trying be offensive to Boseman -- now you back away and say first notable role was in TV, which is also false -- notable is not determined by what's in Wikipedia articles, it's determined by what's in sources. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:17, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Your editing has been false this whole time. You originally restored incorrect information in the lead to say "He began his career in theater, directing, play writing, acting, and teaching". Not only is it redundant to say he began his career "acting" when the previous sentence already says "he took up acting professionally", the rest of that sentence has no relevance to his acting career. Those obviously aren't acting jobs and therefore are not connected to his career as an actor. You keep ignoring the fact that when you first started messing with this article, literally the first sentence in the career section said, "Boseman got his first television role in 2003, in an episode of Third Watch." You can spin this as "falsely misreading" all you want, but when this is the very first sentence in the career section, it is established as his first professional acting role. When the article establishes this as his first professional role, regardless of if it was on television, any functioning human will read this as his first professional role. You keep removing the context of this sentence for some reason (read: it proves you wrong). Only later did you add information about his stage work, but even then, you fail to demonstrate that his stage work was as a professional actor. You strawman the point about the only theater organization being professional. While you dismiss this as "just nonsense", you fail to provide evidence of these actually being professional acting gigs and if he was paid for them. You also falsely claim that I have backed away, despite literally saying his television role was both his first professional role and his first notable role. To say the latter is false is also false. If the sources supported the notability of these roles, then why are they not in the article? It's because they're not notable. If you're not trying to be offensive to Boseman, you should be working to improve the article instead of picking fights because the article doesn't reflect what you want to see. Perhaps you don't bother to check what you write in sources, when you really must, so you don't write false things about recently dead people. Bluerules (talk) 19:43, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Your arguments are both false and nonsense in light of the sources. You really must read sources so you don't make such false claims about BLPD people, No functioning human, would read first television as first professional acting, the two statements are not the same. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:30, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Your arguments are both false and nonsense, period. In addition to reading sources, you must really understand context so you do not make such false claims. No functioning human would not read first television as first professional acting when the first television role is the first professional acting role listed in the article. You continue to strawman this point while ignoring the context of the sentence and making a bizarre claim about "BLPD people", an acronym I'm not certain about. I don't think you mean to imply Boseman has borderline personality disorder; I don't see anything indicating that he had it. Bluerules (talk) 20:53, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

BLP is the policy covering recently deceased people, so D is for recently deceased. And no, no functioning human would do what claim. Alanscottwalker (talk) Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:07, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Having the lead reflect what is established in the article follows BLP/BLPD. And no, no functioning human would misunderstand context. Bluerules (talk) 21:26, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Bluerules, Well, incorrect, and you are not convincing, so you can drop it now, because the lead is no longer blatantly false, as is was previously, and that's why this discussion was opened by me. Time to move on. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:32, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

@Alanscottwalker and Bluerules: Friendly suggestion: stop bickering. It's clear you're not going to meet each other's views, and it's devolving into playground bites. When the article has been sufficient expanded and improved, the lead will be amended in line. At the moment, I don't see anything in the lead that contradicts the article, so let's leave it and try something productive, please. Kingsif (talk) 20:22, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Sure, now that the false information is no longer in the lead, we should leave it. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:33, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm fine with the current status of the lead. I agree that it should be expanded when the article becomes larger. Bluerules (talk) 20:53, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the chronological and accurate lead works best for now. Bluerules (talk) 20:53, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

No, the attempt to put in a chronology resulted in to the BLPD violations, and the current lead is still very poor, but that is being discussed below. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:58, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

You said we should leave the lead as it is, now you're calling the lead "still very poor" without explaining how. You claim "the attempt to put in a chronology resulted in to the BLPD violations" but fail to provide reasons because they don't exist. My original edit to the lead didn't even make it chronological; it began with a summary of his impact. It became chronological in order to suit the length of the article. Bluerules (talk) 21:26, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

It is still very poor, as for leaving it - the concern about the blatant falsity in the lead has been addressed by editing, and is gone into detail above. The rest is being discussed below, so leaving this discussion only makes sense. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:35, 9 September 2020 (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.

"Notable" film roles

The following discussion 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.

---

There is contention over what constitutes a "notable" film role for this article's lead. The current argument is 21 Bridges and Da 5 Bloods are the only notable films outside of the MCU and the biopics. No specific reason, however, has been given for these films are "notable", while Draft Day, Gods of Egypt, and Message from the King are not. Draft Day and Gods of Egypt were wide releases, like 21 Bridges. In fact, Gods of Egypt had a higher budget and grossed more at the box office. I could understand excluding these if he had minor roles, but he appears in the billing block of both. Message from the King was a Netflix exclusive, like Da 5 Bloods, and he played the lead role. There is no consistency behind having 21 Bridges and Da 5 Bloods in the lead as "notable" films while omitting Draft Day, Gods of Egypt, and Message from the King. The only difference between these films is 21 Bridges and Da 5 Bloods came out after Black Panther, which places undue weight on his post-MCU career. Bluerules (talk) 17:15, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm fine with the current versions, excluding those three roles you mentioned. Boseman's roles in 21 Bridges and Da 5 Bloods were more extensive than his roles in the other three you mentioned. Plus media coverage of his death largely omitted those three films. -- Calidum 17:21, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

21 Bridges and Da 5 Bloods are not more extensive than Gods of Egypt. 21 Bridges grossed $49.9 million at the box office; Gods of Egypt grossed $150.7 million. Boseman played the lead role in Message from the King, unlike Da 5 Bloods. We cannot place undue weight towards more recent roles and coverage. Draft Day, Gods of Egypt, and Message from the King are not any less notable films than 21 Bridges and Da 5 Bloods. To only include the more recent two puts undue weight towards his later career. Bluerules (talk) 17:50, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

You misread what I wrote. I'm not basing my opinion on how much a film grossed, but on Boseman's role within the film and which films reliable sources focus on when writing about him. -- Calidum 18:08, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

My response to Boseman's role within the film is that he played the lead Message from the King, which he did not in Da 5 Bloods - a more extensive role. Gods of Egypt had more attention than 21 Bridges and while he may not have been the lead, he was in the billing block as a major character. The inclusion of 21 Bridges and Da 5 Bloods is not based on reliable sources. They were the only non-MCU/non-biopic roles included in the lead right before he died because of undue weight towards his later career. This omission of his pre-MCU roles (outside of the biopics) maintains the undue weight. Bluerules (talk) 18:22, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

And that is what we should base it on. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:15, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

That is not what we should base it on when it is not accurate. Refer to the last revision before his death. The articles on his death were not the basis for including his recent roles in the lead when they were already included before those articles were written. Bluerules (talk) 18:22, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

That is a good way to look at it. When the reliable sources had to cover his death they have decide what films were most notable, and we need to a good reason to against that such a scholarly film analysis. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:56, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

From the reliable sources included in the article, none reference 21 Bridges and Da 5 Bloods as his notable film roles. Da 5 Bloods is mentioned because it was referenced in his family's statement as one his last roles. Only one source mentions 21 Bridges and it's not because of his acting role; it was mentioned because it was his first producer credit. At no point did the reliable sources decide these films were the most notable. They were already in the lead before he died due to undue weight towards his post-MCU career. It's not "scholarly film analysis" that placed them in the lead, it's undue weight towards his later roles, and the lead cannot have undue weight. Bluerules (talk) 18:22, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

You seriously need to read up on what WP:UNDUE is. As WP:BLPLEAD tells us, we only mention the most-notable roles, which have been highlighted in his NYTimes obituary. The lead is not a listing of all his leading roles, and as such "post-MCU career" or "pre-MCU career" is an imaginary line that makes no sense. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 05:39, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

You seriously need to read up on what WP:BLPLEAD is. It specifically says the lead "must summarise the life and works of the person with due weight". That is not present in the current lead. While you call his post- and pre-MCU career "an imaginary line that makes no sense", it is a verifiable fact that he had a career before the MCU and a career after the MCU. It is a fact that this current lead places too much weight on his later (post-MCU) roles and not his earlier (pre-MCU) roles. WP:BLPLEAD does not establish what constitutes a "notable" film role and what doesn't. You have not established legitimate grounds for what constitutes a "notable" film. As I have repeatedly pointed out, 21 Bridges and Da 5 Bloods were already in the lead before he died. They were not placed in the lead because they were "highlighted" in a NY Times obituary that was made afterwards, but because of undue weight towards his post-MCU career. The sentence even reads, "Outside of his roles as real-life historical figures and also Black Panther, he appeared in films such as 21 Bridges (2019) and Da 5 Bloods (2020)". Why are these post-MCU films cited and not his pre-MCU films? Again, it's because of undue weight towards his later career. The NY Times obituary doesn't even highlight 21 Bridges as a notable role; it's mentioned because Boseman served as a producer. I do not understand why you are so resistant towards having the lead summarize his entire career. Because his career was tragically cut short, the lead is able to have all of his notable roles without being too long. Bluerules (talk) 15:39, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

The current lead places too much emphasis on his TV roles. It's ridiculous that the TV roles are the third sentence for this actor. Like say Marlon Brando, the first paragraph should be about cultural impact, or like today's featured article Michelle Williams, about the context of the roles chosen -- but at any rate there is no reason to include either, Gods of Egypt nor Message for the lead, we are not writing a resume, nor an obituary. That you argue that 21 Bridges and Da5 Bloods are less important is irrelevant. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:36, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

The current lead is in chronological order. It is a fact that the TV roles were his first major roles. To make that the third sentence for the actor is not placing too much emphasis on his TV roles - it is being accurate and logical. Again, those were his first major roles, so they are listed first and receive nothing more than one sentence. There is no rigid standard for how these articles should be written and what is best for them. To your Marlon Brando and Michelle Williams comparison, I point to the Emilia Clarke article, which does not begin its lead with cultural impact or context of the roles chosen. Like this article, the lead is chronological and doesn't mention her breakthrough with Game of Thrones until the second paragraph. While currently not a featured article like Williams', it is currently deemed a "good" article, unlike Brando's. As for the "notable" films, a reason for why Gods of Egypt and Message from the King should not be included has not been given. This has nothing to do with writing "resumes" or "obituaries"; this is about the lead properly summarizing his entire career. The reason to include these films is so the lead has a proper summary instead of placing undue weight towards his post-MCU career. That you think that 21 Bridges and Da 5 Bloods are more important is irrelevant. The fact that all of these roles were notable (and all important in the context of the lead) is relevant. Bluerules (talk) 20:11, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

No. The lead is poorly constructed. And I have not said what I think about 21 Bridges nor Da5, the mention of 21 Bridges if it is there should mention that he was producer because that gives information about his career path, as for Da5, it seems clear to me that it was put there because it was his last role before death, and it's the type of role he decided to spend time on at the end but the problems with the lead go beyond that and are not improved by adding these other pictures. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:24, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

No. The lead is fine as is. If it is fine for a "good" article like Emilia Clarke, then it is fine here. And I never said 21 Bridges or Da 5 Bloods were less important. The focus of the lead is not on his producing career because he did little producing; the focus is on his acting career. It was not added because he was a producer, it was added because it was a leading role post-MCU. Therefore, his producer status does not apply to its notability when the focus is on his acting career. Likewise, Da 5 Bloods was added to the lead before he died. It was not put there because it was his last role before death; it was put there because it was a post-MCU role. It isn't even his last role before he died. That's Ma Rainey's Black Bottom. That's the type of role he decided to spend time on at the end. If we were going by your criteria, we would only need Ma Rainey's Black Bottom and not Da 5 Bloods. I don't have much of a stance on which pictures are used, but the apparent "problems with the lead" that you claim "go beyond that" issue with the films used do not apply. Bluerules (talk) 21:42, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

The last picture released before death, and the type of role he decided to spend time on. And at least conveying that he was not just an actor gives a more accurate picture. The lead remains poor, nonetheless, and is not improved by adding Gods of Egypt nor Message from the King. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:58, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

The last picture released before death isn't as notable as his actual final film. The lead focuses on his acting career, which he primarily embarked on, and should remain focused on the primary role he decided to spend time on, especially when the article isn't long enough to support a longer lead. If we are listing all of his non-MCU and non-biopic roles, then the lead is improved by adding Gods of Egypt and Message from the King. It provides a full summary of his career. If 21 Bridges and Da 5 Bloods are removed, as they currently are, that is also fine because it demonstrates consistency and focus on the most important roles of all. You keep saying that "the lead remains poor", but don't establish the problems with it. Your idea of improving the lead was to add information about the historical figures he portrayed, which is not relevant to the lead. Boseman did not do what those historical figures did. Bluerules (talk) 22:08, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Not quite, the lead would be improved by more measure of his impact, and the three bios lend weight to that as it was his choice to portray three men who broke barriers. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:37, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

The lead already contains the biggest measures of his impact - the MCU and the biopics. For the lead to have more measure of his impact, the article needs to be longer. Until then, the focus on his biggest impact is most suitable. The three bios are not relevant to the lead because Boseman was not those three men who broke barriers. The notability to the lead is simply the fact that Boseman played historical figures frequently during his career. The focus is on his acting career, not anyone else. Bluerules (talk) 22:44, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Also to respond to the now-locked discussion: Saying things that are incorrect will not make you convincing. You didn't even open a discussion; you jumped on existing discussions to pick fights. If you really wanted to drop it now, you would stop responding with incorrect and unconvincing attacks. The lead is no longer blatantly false because the false information you were trying to add has been removed, while the lead still makes the point that he began his career notability with television. Time to move on. If you thought it was "still very poor", then why did you say "we should leave it" just a few replies earlier? I was the one addressed the blatant falsity by editing. I made certain that the lead correctly established how he achieved notability. If the rest is being discussed below, why are you still here? Why are you still posting in this discussion if leaving it "only makes sense"? Bluerules (talk) 21:57, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Nothing you have said is accurate, but move on from that issue. Now, we are discussing the lead as a whole and no one is supporting what you want to add because it is no improvement. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:02, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Nothing you have said is accurate in this issue or any other issue. You talk about moving on when you attacked me over the quality of the lead in a discussion about just one component of the lead. This discussion is not about the lead as a whole; it is about which films should be included. Emir of Wikipedia agrees with me that there is a consistency issue in what constitutes the "notable" films for the lead and removed 21 Bridges and Da 5 Bloods. Consistency is an improvement. And I am in support of this change because coming to compromises is how you improve articles on Wikipedia. Bluerules (talk) 22:13, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

What I have said is accurate in this and previously, but fine you don't agree. Time to move on. The lead has been trimmed, and there is still no support for adding, Gods of Egypt and Message from the King, so they won't be added and we can move on from that, too. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:24, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

What I have said has been accurate in both discussions and that's why I'm working towards managing my suggestions with the suggestions of others. My main concern here was not adding Gods of Egypt and Message from the King. My concern was a lack of consistency in the lead. There was support for the consistency and now the lead is more consistent. Time to move on, indeed. As long as the lead is consistent, the issue is settled and can be moved on from until a larger article requires a larger lead. Bluerules (talk) 22:34, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Gods of Egypt was a bomb.... how exactly is that notable? Trillfendi (talk) 19:45, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

21 Bridges was a bomb. How exactly is one bomb notable, but another isn't? Especially when Gods of Egypt still grossed more than 21 Bridges. Bluerules (talk) 20:12, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Gross is irrelevant so you don't need to mention that again or people may think you are WP:Bludgeoning. What do sources at the end of his career mention when talking about his career? -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:57, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

My main point here was that 21 Bridges and Gods of Egypt were both bombs, so regardless of gross, a film being a bomb is not a reason to exclude it from the lead. As far as sources go, I found an article from The Economist that references Gods of Egypt while discussing his death. Bluerules (talk) 21:42, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Whether a film is a bomb and its gross are not we judge inclusion in the lead. Good on finding a source though, Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:45, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

That I agree with, which is why I made the response that I did. If the source helps, then I remain for including Gods of Egypt into the lead. Bluerules (talk) 21:57, 9 September 2020 (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.

The 2 TV roles in the lead

The following discussion 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.

---

What about what's in the article make those two TV roles lead material, especially in the first paragraph? As the lead is now, I propose we drop that sentence entirely. It has lost whatever function it had as bio summary.

(An alternative, is to expand somewhat the last lead para to give a summary bio. Born in SC, went to Howard started acting directing and writing went to TV and movies to death but that is a different issue from the above edit). -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:09, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

The TV roles are lead material because they were his first major roles. It demonstrates how he began to pick up prominence. It's the same reason why The Bill Engvall Show is the first the role mentioned in Jennifer Lawrence's featured article and Emilia Clarke's good article has Doctors and Triassic Attack in the first paragraph of the lead. Boseman didn't land the role of Jackie Robinson overnight.

I'd prefer the article to be more like Lawrence's article where it starts off as a summary of his career, but that would add another paragraph and this article is currently not long enough to support four paragraphs. As it stands, the sentence demonstrates his transition into bigger roles. Bluerules (talk) 14:55, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Where does major come from? The body of this article and the source used [9] don't say major.

How about:

Chadwick Aaron Boseman (November 29, 1976 – August 28, 2020)[5][a] was an American actor. After more than a decade acting, his breakthrough performance came as baseball player Jackie Robinson in the biographical film 42 (2013). He continued to portray historical figures, starring in Get on Up (2014) as singer James Brown and Marshall (2017) as Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall.

or

Chadwick Aaron Boseman (November 29, 1976 – August 28, 2020)[5][a] was an American actor. After more than a decade acting including on television, his breakthrough performance came as baseball player Jackie Robinson in the biographical film 42 (2013). He continued to portray historical figures, starring in Get on Up (2014) as singer James Brown and Marshall (2017) as Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall.

Those not only indicate transition, they do not get bogged down. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:08, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

The "major" comes from the fact that he was a series regular, just as Jennifer Lawrence was a series regular on The Bill Engvall Show. Those were the first roles he had where he played a large part in the story. The fact that Times referenced these roles demonstrates their notability.

The issue with these suggestions is that they remove the Howard University reference and I do not know if other editors are in favor of removing this. The transition is best if it begins with his earlier life before going into his professional career, like the article. Bluerules (talk) 19:22, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

The source suggests The Express film role is more important than the TV, and indicates the TV was minor (also, one was only on basic cable, and the other while on a Network was a brief single summer replacement only, and not on the regular schedule, and in neither was he the lead). With respect to Howard, the current sentence is odd because of timing, as he did not go from Howard to the TV role (which was in fact about 8 years later). This is what I suggest for Howard:

Chadwick Aaron Boseman (November 29, 1976 – August 28, 2020)[5][a] was an American actor. After more than a decade acting [including on television], his breakthrough performance came as baseball player Jackie Robinson in the biographical film 42 (2013). He continued to portray historical figures, starring in Get on Up (2014) as singer James Brown and Marshall (2017) as Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall.

Boseman achieved international fame for playing superhero Black Panther in the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) from 2016 to 2019. He appeared in four MCU films, including an eponymous 2018 film that earned him an NAACP Image Award for Outstanding Actor in a Motion Picture and a Screen Actors Guild Award for Outstanding Performance by a Cast in a Motion Picture. His final film, Ma Rainey's Black Bottom, is scheduled to be released posthumously.

Born and raised in South Carolina, Boseman attended Howard University studying directing before pursuing his career. In 2016, he was diagnosed with colon cancer. He kept his condition private, continuing to pursue acting while receiving treatment. After a four-year battle, Boseman died in 2020 from complications related to the illness.

As the last paragraph is already focused on the personal, its a good place for a bio summary. And its common to lead with the most salient points and then go to bio. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:13, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

The source does neither of these things. The source is making the point that he had a bigger role on those TV shows than The Express (note the "although" contrasting with his supporting role in The Express) and neither had big audiences. However, the source also acknowledges that these were important roles, which is why the point of their low viewership is made (prominent TV roles didn't help him land Jackie Robinson when few people saw those shows). Not being the lead in either is irrelevant. Jennifer Lawrence was obviously not the lead of The Bill Engvall Show and the show generated little attention. However, that is still the first role referenced in her lead because that was her first major role. The same goes for Boseman because he was contracted as a series regular and therefore given a significant role; he appears in most, if not all episodes. Therefore, these were his first major roles.

The last paragraph is not focused on the personal; the last paragraph is focused on his death, which is naturally most suitable for the last paragraph. To put his early life at the end would be odd because it confuses the chronology of the lead and immediately jumps into 21st century, an even greater discrepancy in timing. Leading with the most salient points would involve adding a new paragraph that avoids reference to specific roles the best it can, like with the Lawrence and Williams articles. That does not exist and the article lacks the length to have another paragraph in the lead. All current information in the lead is written as a chronological bio and it is best to maintain this until the article is expanded to avoid jumping all over the place with information. Bluerules (talk) 21:43, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Well, we disagree on much of that, but even if one were to accept the argument that the 2008 TV role (did not appear in all episodes) should be given pride of place in the first paragraph, as 'first major' (in which "major" is entirely unsourced), that means the 2010 TV role cannot possibly be first major, and the 2010 TV role should be taken out of the lead, as just taking space to prevent getting to the salient points (especially since the source has the 2008 screen role, as Floyd Little, and neither TV role, in first place). -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:54, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Again, "first major" is based on the fact that he was a series regular. He had not received title credit in any of his past roles. This is the same guideline used to determine The Bill Engvall Show was Jennifer Lawrence's first major role and Jennifer Lawrence has a featured article. I have removed Lincoln Heights because upon further investigation, he was not a series regular (e.g. his name did not appear in the opening credits). So the single inclusion of Persons Unknown resolves this issue. As for the source, it lists the 2008 role and neither TV role because Boseman played a real-life figure in the former; it's not about the prominence of the role, it's reflecting on the fact that he played a real person. It's why I made certain the article mentioned his real-life role in the body. Bluerules (talk) 01:21, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

"First major" is unsourced, the source does not say it, and repeating again and again about the Lawrence article, does not make it sourced in the Chadwick Boseman article. The Lawrence article lead is also entirely different from the lead of this article, demonstrating, if anything, how poor the lead of of the Boseman article is: there the 'first major' line you keep pointing to in the Lawrence article is practically invisible, which someone skimming would likely never even read -- it's practically a throw-away line, in its presentation -- and would immediately drop-out if someone was trying to shorten that lead, or even shorten the third paragraph, there. Chad Boseman's article, on the other hand focuses immediately and prominently on this 'first major' claim, which remains unsourced in this article. The 'first-major'-line here is the second sentence, when no coverage of this actor remotely suggests, after his name, 'you critically and immediately must know what aired in the summer of 2010' -- it is like a shouting trivia diversion, here. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:00, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Where is the source in the Jennifer Lawrence article of The Bill Engvall Show being her first major role? The source does not specifically say "first major". The source does, however, acknowledge its important. The source here acknowledges the importance of Persons Unknown. If it was the first time he received title credit, whether as a series regular or in the film's billing block, it is considered his first major role. The Jennifer Lawrence article is a featured article and therefore a good guideline to follow. The only difference between the Lawrence article lead and the Boseman article lead is the former begins with her accomplishments before going into a chronological order of her career, resulting in an additional paragraph. This article cannot sustain an additional paragraph in the lead because the article does not have enough content. So this is not reflective of "how poor the lead of of the Boseman article is"; this is reflective of how the article needs to be expanded for the lead to expand. As it stands, the lead is satisfactory. Refer to the Emilia Clarke article, which puts a guest role on Doctors in the third sentence of the first paragraph, yet is deemed a good article. These notions that the "first major" line in the Lawrence article are "practically invisible, which someone skimming would likely never even read" and "practically a throw-away line, in its presentation" are unfounded. The fact that it's the first sentence in the second paragraph to have an article link will actually make eyes gravitate towards it due to the colorings making it stand out. It's a necessary line in its presentation because it demonstrates how Lawrence was building up her career before she became a household name. The notion that it "would immediately drop-out if someone was trying to shorten that lead, or even shorten the third paragraph, there" is completely unfounded. There is no reason given for why it would be taken out because there is none. Given that Lawrence's article is deemed "featured", it's unlikely that someone would try to shorten the lead or the third paragraph when that could affect the high quality established by the article. Look past comparing the leads of these two articles and look to why Lawrence has a longer lead - the career section of the Lawrence article is far longer than the career section of the Boseman article. Again, expanding the lead to follow the format of the Lawrence article requires the entire Boseman article to be expanded. To have a four paragraph lead that begins with a summary requires a word count that this article is under. Chadwick Boseman's article focuses immediately and prominently on the first major fact, which has its notability demonstrated by the source and sourced by it being his first title credit role, because the shorter length requires a simply chronological lead. Again, Emilia Clarke's article puts her role on Doctors, which people outside of the UK are unlikely to be familiar with, in the third sentence. The first two roles cited in the article lead, in the very first paragraph, are a UK soap opera that had her for one episode and a low-budget Syfy original that even fewer people watched. Yet that wasn't deemed "a shouting trivia diversion" because that article is deemed a good article. It demonstrates a progression of her career. The second sentence here demonstrates the progression of Boseman's career. No coverage of this actor remotely disproves that Persons Unknown wasn't his first major role. The little attention that the show generated does not change the fact that it was still the first time he had title credit for a role. It is a necessary component of his career because it was the first time he wasn't limited to a guest television role or a bit film part. It demonstrates how he worked his way up to bigger roles. Bluerules (talk) 12:54, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for noting the source does not say "first major", that makes it unsourced, and that is all that matters for the Chadwick Boseman article. Our purpose is not to publish mine or your thoughts on "first major" things in this article. As for the rest, it obviously does not show progression (it's written as single point-in-time), and it is written as as just immediately note the relatively meaningless and unsourced - 'you really need the name of this summer show (which does not capture his career), before we get to something that matters'. Read practically any of the sources -- no such immediate prominence is given to the summer-role, in introducing the topic of Chadwick Boseman, and when they speak of it at all it's not remotely the second sentence, which means the lead here is very poor. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:34, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for ignoring that the cited source in Jennifer Lawrence's article does not say "first major", yet this remains present in a featured article. Thanks for ignoring that Boseman's filmography demonstrates this was his first major role and it is therefore sourced by his filmography, just as Lawrence's filmography sourced The Bill Engvall Show as her first major role. Our purpose is to be accurate. The fact that Boseman was contracted as a series regular demonstrates this was a major role. This is not a figment of anyone's thoughts; it's a stone cold fact that Boseman received title credit for Persons Unknown and this was the first time he received such credit. As for the rest, it obviously does show progression. It's not just written in a single point of time. It goes from Boseman's early life and career, coming to prominence with the biopics, gaining worldwide attention in the MCU, and dying from colon cancer. It is written chronologically, outlining the events in Boseman's life as they happened. It is written to note the earliest events first as they were the first to happen to Boseman, so logically and consistently with the lead's flow, it makes note of an early career role - an important and sourced television role that was the first time he received title credit. It was his first major role, which does capture his career because it was the first time he wasn't a one-off character and his career continued to grow from that point. It's not getting to something that matters - it's something that already matters because where Boseman came from matters. He didn't become a star overnight, he worked to that point, and working to that point involves his first major role on a summer show. Read practically any of the sources. Immediate prominence is given to the summer role by the fact that it's acknowledged. It's acknowledged because of its importance. In introducing the topic of Chadwick Boseman as a biography, it makes sense to start with the earliest moments of his life because the biography depicts his life as it unfolded. That means the earliest work comes first. The other sources are not biographies. They are not encyclopedia entries. To compare them to this article is false equivalence. We do not copy the format of sources, which means it's irrelevant if the sources don't mention Persons Unknown until "not remotely the second sentence". Without legitimate reason to criticize the lead, that means the lead here is suitable. Bluerules (talk) 15:45, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

It's misrepresentation and false context then: that show is not early moments in his life, nor is it presented among other earlier moments in his career, nor does the sentence say that he worked long and hard. The current second sentence, also makes no sense as a matter of weight when discussing his before '42 career, as no source starts with this show, let alone have it be the only thing mentioned to stand in for the rest of those years. "First major" is not a fact, it's an original research commentary, research and commentary which no-one (but apparently you), makes for Chadwick Boseman. Even sources mentioning the show don't give it the false lone prominence the current lead does, nor does the body of this Wikipedia article. Whenever the summer show is mentioned in sources and in the Wikipedia article body, it's always and only within context other career events from his acting career before '42.

Had you looked at the Boseman sources, you would have seen that there is an online biography and it does not give it this high-up prominence, nor have it stand alone for his before '42 career - no source, nor the body of the the Wikipedia article does this false-representation, shoving it alone high-up as a stand-in his pre-42 life. As for format, this violates Wikipedia format for leads as there is nothing in the body of the article, nor the sources which give it this special and alone treatment, nor have it stand in for years of work. Fundamentally, the current way it is treated in the lead, violates multiple core Wikipedia policies, having no source which says that, being original research, giving a single show undue weight and misrepresenting his pre-42 career. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:35, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

It's proper representation and correct context because that show is an early, notable moment in his professional life. It does not need to be presented among other earlier moments in his career because it's the most notable early moment in his career and the only one with necessary prominence for the lead. The "current" (as of the time this was written) second sentence makes perfect sense as a matter of weight when discussing his before 42 career because it was the major role he had and therefore has weight. It was the first time he received title credit. Arguing that "no source starts with this show, let alone have it be the only thing mentioned to stand in for the rest of those years" is irrelevant because this page is not supposed to regurgitate the sources. It is supposed to be written using the sources to prove information, but directly copy the format of the source, especially when the sources aren't written in an encyclopedic tone. That goes against how this article is supposed to be written and that veers into plagiarism. "First major" is a fact, it's not original research commentary when other sources acknowledge its importance in Boseman's career. It is not research and commentary; it is a fact which no one (but apparently you) would deny for Chadwick Boseman. A simple glimpse at his filmography proves this fact, but you are hung up on literal wording and formatting from secondary sources. Neither of these shape how Wikipedia articles are written. Again, even sources mentioning show do not have the same purpose that the "current" lead does. To compare the two is false equivalence. The "current" lead gives the show proper prominence by acknowledging an earlier event earlier in the lead. It's not "lone" prominence either when the show is placed alongside his attendance/graduation from Howard University. To call this "lone prominence" is completely false. To say the body of the Wikipedia article does not give the show prominence is also false. The body gives the show it's own sentence and acknowledges that it was a series regular role. To continue to compare the "summer" show to how it is used in sources remains false equivalence. And the lead actually does reference the show "within context other career events from his acting career before '42" by putting it in the same sentence alongside how he laid the foundation for his career (studying directing at Howard). Therefore, this makes the inclusion of Persons Unknown even more appropriate.

Had you looked at actual Wikipedia entries, you would have seen actual examples of what formatting should be performed for this article. We do not copy sources or other online biographies. That is plagiarism. Other sources not giving Persons Unknown "this high-up prominence" does not dictate how this article should be written, nor should they because they do not follow an encyclopedic tone. It also remains completely false to say it stands "alone for his before '42 career" when it shares the same sentence as his graduation from Howard. The body of the article gives it this same proper representation by giving it its own sentence and acknowledging it as a series regular role. Putting it properly high reflects this in the body, all while claiming it is "alone high-up as a stand-in his pre-42 life" is a complete falsehood when it shares the same sentence with his pre-42 life at Howard University. As for format, this is perfectly inline with Wikipedia format for leads as the fact that Persons Unknown is acknowledged as a series regular role and receives its own mention is the something in the body of the article that gives it this "special" treatment - read: acknowledgement of its importance in his career. No matter how many times this falsehood of it receiving "alone" treatment is stated, it will never be true when Persons Unknown shares a sentence with Howard University. It does not "stand in for years of work" because of the Howard University presence. No matter how many times the sources are harped on, the fact remains that they are not encyclopedic entries, the fact remains that they do not follow the same format as this article, and the fact remains that this article is not supposed to follow their format. The proper comparison for the format of an encyclopedia entry would be other encyclopedia entries. The leads of the featured Jennifer Lawrence article and the good Emilia Clarke article have been completely ignored because they demonstrate why this lead is correct in referencing Persons Unknown in its location. Fundamentally, the "current" way it is treated in the lead is perfectly aligned with Wikipedia's format for leads. While you play the literal card, the primary sources of Boseman's actual filmography says this was the first major role of his career. It's the same source that has Lawrence's article calling her series regular role her "first major role", despite no sources literally saying this, because it's not original research. It is still acknowledged by sources and supported by the primary source, which disproves the "original research" falsehood. The single show is given proper weight because he was given series regular credit for the first time. It properly represents his pre-42 by showing the steps he took to get there - a major role on television to a major role in film. Bluerules (talk) 16:00, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Dozens of seriously written overviews of his career are in the sources, several of which are already cited in this article and none them say "landed his first major role". That phrase is the language of a child or at best a fan magazine, not seriously written. And your claim that "first major" is based on your analysis of primary sources, that don't say "first major", demonstrate again that "first major" is original research opinion for Boseman. To make that statement one has to research all of his work and weigh all the other things in his career and make the evaluation to conclude, it's "first major". No source has done that research and reached that conclusion, making it original research.

And no, that Wikipedia bans original research and requires we give the same emphasis as sources do (not undue emphasis), does not require plagiarism, for example we use "breakthrough" when discussing '42 in the lead of this article precisely because it is used in so many serous sources who have analysed his career that way. Other Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources for Wikipedia articles, and as you know I already disagree with most of what you argue, so there is no reason to go over it in detail again in this discussion; it remains unsourced, original research, and undue weight, and violating lead, as presented, so I take it we will have to move to dispute resolution to get any further. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:19, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Those "dozens of seriously written overviews of his career are in the sources" do not dictate how this article is written because they do not follow an encyclopedic tone. The "several of which are already cited in this article" are cited to support information, not exact wording. No matter how many times this fact is ignored, the fact remains that none of the sources on Jennifer Lawrence's featured article say "first major role", yet that is a featured article. This absurd notion "that phrase is the language of a child or at best a fan magazine, not seriously written" is disproven by the fact that the phrase is present in the featured article of Jennifer Lawrence. It is disproven by that phrase being in the leads of the featured Brad Pitt filmography, Jennifer Aniston filmography, and List of Amy Adams performances articles. So actually, it is the seriously written language of featured Wikipedia articles as it is definitely proven to be used in featured Wikipedia articles. And your claim that Boseman's first major role is "an original research opinion" is based on misinformation and playing the literal card. It is a stone cold fact that Boseman was a series regular for Persons Unknown. It is a stone cold fact that being a series regular is a major role. It is a stone cold fact that Boseman had no prior series regular roles before Persons Unknown. It is a stone cold fact that in his only film role prior to Persons Unknown, he was billed 49th in the ending credits. Therefore, it is a stone cold fact that Persons Unknown was Boseman's first major role. While you can harp on the primary sources not literally saying "first major" all you want, the facts are clear. A series regular role is a major role and no misrepresentation will change this. To make that statement, one actually just has to look for the first time he received his own title credit in a film or television show. It's the same common sense practice that was used to determine The Bill Engvall Show was the first major role of Jennifer Lawrence. Just as the primary source of Lawrence's filmography proved The Bill Engvall Show was her first major role, Boseman's filmography proved that Persons Unknown was his first major role. The sources acknowledge this role because of its importance in his career. Nothing changes the fact that a series regular role is a major role, making this not original research, but a stone cold fact in the article.

And no, there is a difference between using sources to cite information and outright copying sources. The latter is plagiarism. Wikipedia bans original research to make certain everything is supported by outside information, but your complaints are rooted in this article not being formatted the same way as the sources. "The sources don't mention the summer show early on, so neither should this article!" No, the sources follow a different format than this article and making the article's wording the same as the sources would veer into plagiarism territory. To claim sources are giving emphasis and not undue emphasis actually is original research because it is based on your unverifiable opinion. "Breakthrough" was used discussing 42 in the article despite many sources not literally calling it his "breakthrough" because it is also supported by the increased prominence he received from the role. This not about using other Wikipedia articles as "reliable sources" for Wikipedia article. That is a complete strawman. This is about properly formatting Wikipedia articles and featured Wikipedia articles present an ideal example for the formatting of other Wikipedia articles because they're regarded as the best written. You're free to discuss whether you agree or disagree all you want, but don't misrepresent arguments, don't ignore facts, and don't purport misinformation. It remains sourced, a fact, and proper weight, as accurately presented. The tactics used to have a portion of a single sentence removed have veered into bad faith and this further supports why it should be retained. Bluerules (talk) 15:06, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

As I said, it's time to go to dispute resolution. It should be obvious that while things such as appearing in role is a fact, adding commentary like "first major" is not a fact, its a conclusion, and we must leave such conclusions to sources and we also must follow sources in the due weight they put on things. It also should be obvious that your continued bringing up of other Wikipedia articles which were discussed above much earlier in this discussion, is unconvincing (in your latest three, none of them say, "landed" a role). Thus, the failures here need to go to dispute resolution, especially in light of your latest false claims about bad faith. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:52, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

This discussion is settled. It should be obvious that in addition to things such as a appearing in a role is a fact, adding notability like "first major" is not a conclusion, it's a fact, and we must leave such facts in the article. The supposed "due weight" sources put on things is a conclusion and we use sources for information, not for formatting an article. It should also be obvious that your continued refusal to acknowledge other Wikipedia articles, many of which were not mentioned earlier, and dismissal of them being "unconvincing" with no reasoning for why are bad faith discussion tactics. Cherry-picking because the other articles didn't include one additional word is bad faith. Refusing to listen to other side is bad faith. Making strawman arguments is bad faith. Continually relying on falsehood is bad faith. And editing a talk page to attack another editor is bad faith. If you refuse to acknowledge the other side, you are discussing in bad faith, and the proper thing to do is step away without further bad faith comments. Bluerules (talk) 16:10, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

No one attacked you, and all your points have been discussed and that they should not be discussed again, and again, is just good talk page use -- and all your claims of bad faith are without merit. (And you also apparently did not get the phrasing issue raised was "landed his first major role" because we had already discussed "first major" at length). So, on to dispute resolution.-- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:22, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

You entered the talk page on an unrelated discussion to declare "Your adding of usourced and false information to the lead is wrong and it makes no sense". You have not properly addressed many points raised, including how articles are not supposed to follow the format of sources, how claiming "due weight" in sources is original research, how the format of featured articles provide a guideline for how other articles should be written, and how a series regular role is a major role. If you feel this should no longer be discussed, then you should no longer be continuing the discussion. That is bad talk page use; responding only for the sake of responding and not actually replying to the points raised. You prove the bad faith by continuing to reply without any substance to your replies. And you also apparently did not get the cherry-picking issue raised because being hung up on a single word difference is further bad faith discussion. So, it's up to you to start acting in good faith or leave. Bluerules (talk) 16:36, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

I have addressed all those matters. And your false bad faith claims have brought 'this' discussion to unuseful ending, but going to dispute resolution is not stopping discussion, it is changing the process, hopefully to bring in resolution where the discussion can continue profitably. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:43, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Simply saying you have "addressed all those matters" does not mean you have addressed all those matters. Dishonesty is further bad faith on your part. For all your talk about "false bad faith claims", your very first response to me says everything and your continued bad faith behavior ensured that this discussion would not end productively. You try discrediting my contributions without any legitimate ground to stand on refuse to listen to viewpoints different from your own. I even took action to remove one of the shows from the lead, but you refuse to compromise and collaborate with other editors. Dispute resolution will not change anything. This discussion has already been stopped by your refusal to accept other approaches to the article. The matter is settled unless you wish to recognize why Persons Unknown is referenced when and where it is. Until then, the right thing for you to do is leave. Bluerules (talk) 16:54, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

I have not refused other approaches, I have addressed the current article, the current article cannot be the only approach, and I have offered several approaches, nor did I object when you changed the article. (Nor have I been dishonest). But if you want me to consider another approach, than what is current, you should state what it is (focus on the content, only, not the editor). -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:02, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

The source of contention was the two TV roles in the lead. You have been dishonest in claiming you have addressed points that you never addressed. You are not in a position to tell me to "focus on the content, only, not the editor" when your focus from the start has been on me. I removed one of the roles and established its notability to the lead. You refuse any approach includes the TV article, both before and now. At no point did I say the current article is the only approach. But there is certain content that belongs in the article. Build-up to his breakthrough role is among that content. The approaches offered removed not only the television role, but also the foundation of his career (his time at Howard University). The issue with the article right now is not the lead. The issue is the body needs to be expanded so the lead can be expanded to offer a fuller range of his life and career. As it currently stands with the body length, the lead is trimmed enough. Bluerules (talk) 17:13, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Your claim of dishonesty is false, and wrong and nothing in my first post opening this discussion is focused on you. And it's not true that I will accept only removal, we've been over all the issues on this, though here (we can always go to dispute resolution). But if you have another approach for changes in rephrasing or context, I'm listening. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:31, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

What you say conflicts with what you have done. In order to prove your points, you have to address the specific points raised instead of relying on blanket statements. I cut one of the shows out and that's still not good enough for you, so there's nothing more that can be done with the lead. Bluerules (talk) 17:46, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

@Alanscottwalker and Bluerules: This talkpage is becoming unusable as it fills up with paragraph after paragraph of what, really, has become your personal bickering. My best suggestion for you both is to have an interaction break. I follow this talk page, but you can also ping or message me if there are issues about the article you want to discuss. Hopefully other talkpage followers will be willing to discuss, too. Kingsif (talk) 17:30, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

I advise closing this discussion. It's clearly not going anywhere. Bluerules (talk) 17:46, 13 September 2020 (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.

Birth name

Hi, Kingsif please note that the WP:BIRTHNAME or WP:FULLNAME is different from WP:COMMONNAME; and as Template:Infobox person points out, if the "name" parameter does the include the full birth name, it needs to be specified in the "birth name" parameter. WP:FAs on actors such as Bradley Cooper and Scarlett Johansson follow the same principle. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 11:01, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi, @Krimuk2.0: please note: the param is removed from lots of other bios because it's deemed insignificant when there won't be any confusion. Maybe it needs to be clearer in the template instructions, or to be applied consistently if you want to just insist based on precedent. (This is sarcasm and a genuine suggestion, it just occurred to me this might sound a bit aggressive) Kingsif (talk) 11:49, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

RfC on image in project space

Notification: see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography#RFC: Chadwick Boseman image Kingsif (talk) 19:28, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Rfc about including cause of death

The following discussion 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.

---

To avoid consistent edit warring let's establish WP:Consensus here. Should the cause of death be included in the infobox. WP:Precedent says yes, as seen here John Mccain. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 09:03, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support First of all, I support it's inclusion and have added it to the infobox twice. His death is responsible for the most-liked tweet of all time. It's relevant and needed in the infobox. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 09:05, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support The Template:Infobox person instructions are vague, even with the examples they give. It may be that they need rewriting, because the practical use I've always seen is if the death is notable rather than a footnote to the person's life. Boseman died young and unexpectedly during a tough time in both his field of work and relating to the race representation he championed, he immediately received plentiful tributes (including copious commendations relating to his cause of death specifically, with one of these from Obama), and did get that most-liked tweet ever. Kingsif (talk) 10:44, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support in that I fail to see how cause of death contributes to notability as the note dictates (that literally makes no sense unless the person only became famous after death.) Does anyone look at Marilyn Monroe and say that she was famous for a barbituate overdose? Trillfendi (talk) 13:15, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

  She literally has an article for her death Death of Marilyn Monroe. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:54, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

When the average person recalls her, they don’t think about conspiracy theories of her untimely “barbituate overdose”. Trillfendi (talk) 14:09, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, are you saying when you think of her, you don't picture the dress first? If someone is only notable for their death, then they don't get a bio, they get a "Death of..." Kingsif (talk) 14:37, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

While that's true for the most cases, there are exceptions, for example George Floyd has his own bio article and a death article while still only being being notable for his death.★Trekker (talk) 20:38, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

While that's not relevant in context, I should say that I do question the existence of the George Floyd article... Kingsif (talk) 15:54, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Just because basket of idiots decided to spread urban legends that “the mob killed her” doesn’t mean death itself made her notable—her career did. In the case of Mr. Boseman, no one had any idea he was a cancer patient. That doesn’t mean lack of “notability” of that fact should exclude a biographical detail that was part of his life for 4 years. It’s really common sense. Trillfendi (talk) 18:17, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

• Support Including the cause of death in the infobox is absolutely necessary and very significant. Idealigic (talk) 13:58, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support. Dying at age 43 from cancer is not routine. -- Calidum 14:55, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
• Comment The RfC invokes the WP:PRECEDENT essay : Whilst consensus can change, there is a broad body of precedent which can be drawn on for regularly recurring consensus that have been upheld in a variety of situations. In order to establish precedent, one case, such as the cited one about John McCain's death, is far from enough! We need to show established precedent, which means a more or less regular approach to a form. A random, large enough sample among the Category:Dead People articles that have an infobox would do. -The Gnome (talk)
• Against The rule is it has contribute to his notability. Now I will say I think that rule needs to be changed, but that is the rule as it stands now. The discussion needs to be focused on if his death contributed to his notability, I’m not calling anyone out specifically but we need to remember that here. I don’t feel his death contributed to his notability, even if the official announcement became the most liked tweet of all time. But I do feel the rule should be changed to any death that isn’t a routine illness, such as old age, stroke, an older person having a heart attack, etc, and leave it for cancer, homicide, suicide, or to even speak of something that’s an impact now, COVID-19.--Rockchalk717 21:28, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

If your only reason for opposing is to enforce a (vague) rule for the sake of enforcing it, you should see WP:NOTBURO and WP:IAR. -- Calidum 18:13, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

@Calidum: Those policies are extremely contradictory. Wikipedia is not bureaucracy, yet. We need to ignore rules if it prevents us but improving Wikipedia, but yet that rule encourages ignoring rules, so theoretically we could ignore that rule too.--Rockchalk717 20:24, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Rockchalk717: ! -The Gnome (talk) 10:38, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose He was private about it and I see no reason to place it in his infobox. Death at 43 is already in the infobox, and while that matters, the cause does not - that he died of this particular cancer or if he had died of some other cancer or some other illness makes no difference to the amount of coverage or the shock of his death. Nor does death-cause make any difference to the value of his life, his work, his impact, his real notability. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:35, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support legit a lot of people have death causes in their infobox. Chadwick Boseman privately dealt with Colon Cancer for 4 years and his family tweeting about his death is the most liked tweet on twitter. Blueshocker (talk) 00:09, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Comment @Blueshocker: WP:OTHER Just because multiple articles have cause of deaths listed is not a valid reason for supporting an argument. You could pick probably 100 random articles here and at least 90/95 would have Wikipedia policy violations.--Rockchalk717 18:04, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Some stuff exists for a reason. -- Calidum 18:13, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

• Support It has received wide publicity. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 15:38, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

@Figureofnine: Please remember the issue isn’t if the death itself is notable, but if the death contributed to his notability.--Rockchalk717 18:04, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

There is much in infoboxes that is not necessarily directly related to notability, such as place of birth. I think in this instance that his relative youth tips the scales in favor. If he was 90 I would feel differently. When people under 50 die, there is always curiosity and this is useful information for the reader.Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 12:37, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

• Support I agree with a lot of what has already been said. Specific cause of death (focusing on the type of cancer) is listed for many notable people, as seen here Hiro Matsuda. Jurisdicta (talk) 17:01, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

  Jurisdicta. That article is specifically about deaths, which is why the cause is listed there. If you look at the first 5 (and possibly more I stopped checking) the cause of death is not listed in the infobox. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:51, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

  Fair point Emir of Wikipedia, I have removed that reference from my previous note as after I checked, you were correct. I still agree that type of cancer should be listed. Jurisdicta (talk) 00:00, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose Wikipedia:Precedent could just as easily go the other way: see David Bowie. ~ HAL333 01:58, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
• I don't see a use, as per many of the arguments above. The infobox should only include the most important and relevant details. Connormah (talk) 21:29, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

So oppose or support? GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 10:08, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

"I don't see a use" in including it. "The infobox should only include the most important and relevant details" and not his cause of death. If read like that is an oppose. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:54, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Okay, so it's 8-4 in favor of support rn. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 07:06, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:NOTAVOT. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:48, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Um, what? In the case that you wrongly attempted to invoke that Wikipedia is not a democracy, I fully understand that and realize that the person who closes the RFC might rule against me. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 20:31, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Sorry I meant Wikipedia:NOTAVOTE. You also might want to see WP:NOTDEMOCRACY.-- The closer must close on the strengths of the arguments, not a simply tally of votes. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:12, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

• Support The guy was private about the fact that he had a terminal illness, which is very understandable, but not AFAI can see about what the particular illness was. It is notable that he died while very young and I don't see any reason to exclude this basic info. It is almost the inevitable question when you hear that someone so comparatively young dies. Pincrete (talk) 16:44, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Notification

@Tym2412 and Rockchalk717: Please discuss here, and do not make any changes until there is consensus. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:07, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

@Emir of Wikipedia: I will make changes if I want. Tym2412 (talk) 22:39, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Tym2412, then be prepared to be blocked for edit warring. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:51, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

@Emir of Wikipedia: I'm shaking...Tym2412 (talk) 19:22, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Tym2412, it was not a threat but advice. Please read WP:EW. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:23, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Emir of Wikipedia no<3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tym2412 (talk • contribs)

@Doug Weller: Hello, I'd like you to close this rfc whenever you feel it's necessary and on the side of whoever has the superior argument. You're an unbiased, uninvolved editor who is knowledgable on Wikipedia policies making you perfect to handle this in accordance with WP:RFCEND. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 19:37, 14 September 2020 (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.

Semi-protected edit request on 20 December 2020

Chadwick Boseman was actually 42 and had his age changed by the mass media, based on an error by a certain press. Jacbrocki1 (talk) 05:20, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. – robertsky (talk) 10:01, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 December 2020

Line in 3rd paragraph of "Early life and Education" states that "He attended the program in 1998, and developed an appreciation for the playwriting of William Shakespeare,[15] studying the works of various dramaturgs including Samuel Beckett and Harold Pinter.[21]"

Change "dramaturgs" to "playwrights" (These authors were not primarily dramaturgs, that term is being used incorrectly.) Delete the comma after 1998 or add "he" after "and," so "and he developed an appreciation..." (to be grammatically correct). 2601:2C5:8280:5300:6919:8BED:8026:FE8C (talk) 05:26, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

•  Not done Beckett was a theatre director more than a playwright and the source doesn't make it clear if his writing was studied or not - to reflect the source and not make assumptions, the all-encompassing term dramaturg is used. The grammar is fine. Kingsif (talk) 11:10, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

GA nomination

After expanding and copyediting the article, I've nominated it for GA; when it gets picked up for review, anyone can help! Kingsif (talk) 20:44, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion 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.

---

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

Reviewer: Some Dude From North Carolina (talk · contribs) 14:41, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Hey, I'm going to be reviewing this article. Expect comments by the end of the week. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 14:41, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Infobox and lead

• Add a year date after Deep Azure.

• It's a play, they don't have a fixed date. It premiered in 2005 but there have been other performances. Kingsif (talk) 21:45, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

• Infobox and lead prose looks good.

Early life and education

• Remove the comma after "textile factory".

• Done, added one earlier in the sentence - grammar because of "and" build-up. Kingsif (talk) 21:47, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

• Add a comma after "Limba people from Sierra Leone".

• Not strictly necessary but done. Kingsif (talk) 21:47, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

• Several of his plays need year dates.

• See above. Kingsif (talk) 21:47, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

• Remove the comma after "write and direct".

• No, it's needed ("and" build-up again). Kingsif (talk) 21:47, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Career

• Add a comma after "Company of New York".

• Done Kingsif (talk) 21:58, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

• Year dates.

• It's the career section. Kingsif (talk) 21:58, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

• Remove the comma after "Company in Chicago".

• Split sentence. Kingsif (talk) 21:58, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

• "or impression" → "nor impression"

• Done. Kingsif (talk) 21:58, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

• "highest grossing" → "highest-grossing"

• In Both films were the highest grossing of the year they were released, with Endgame going on to become the highest-grossing film of all time. -? If so, no: "highest-grossing" is the adjective, which isn't what "highest grossing" in the first clause is being used for. Kingsif (talk) 21:58, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

• "of their" → "about their"

• Done. Kingsif (talk) 21:58, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

• Remove the comma after "before taking the role".
• Remove the comma after "opening lines".

• No to these, too. In the first instance it is introducing another primary clause (there's much more information after the "but"), in the second it is used to indicate the next clause applies to the subject of the previous clause ("given a nod") rather than simply continuing to describe the "opening lines". Grammar is an art. Kingsif (talk) 21:58, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Appraisal and legacy

• "embodying character" should be plural.

• No it shouldn't. Regardless of how many characters he played, that is a singular skill. Each character has character, and being able to embody that concept is the skill. "Embodying characters" is just "acting". Kingsif (talk) 22:00, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Personal life

• This section looks good.

Illness and death

• "for creation" → "for the creation"

• Done. Kingsif (talk) 22:00, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Filmography

• For The Glades, does Facebook need to be cited?

• It's his official Facebook, so akin to a press release, and it's used for the episode title. Kingsif (talk) 22:02, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Can a more reliable (secondary) source such as this be used instead? Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 22:15, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, replaced. Kingsif (talk) 22:45, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Playwright

• Table looks good.

Awards and honors

• This section also looks good.

References

• Archive all archivable sources (either manually with the help of this and this, or with this tool).

• You'll be pleased to know everything is already archived! (At least, it's not been long since I last ran IAbot, but I've run it again) Kingsif (talk) 22:43, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

• Add a correct title, author, and overall parameters to the reference in the infobox.

• Done Kingsif (talk) 22:43, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

• Deadline → Deadline Hollywood

• What? Even that article says it's just called "Deadline" and the Hollywood part is web branding. Kingsif (talk) 22:43, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

• There is a copy of the reference titled "The 'Black Panther' Revolution" (recite instead).

• Done Kingsif (talk) 22:43, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

• Mark references from Forbes with "|url-access=limited".
• Mark references from Los Angeles Times with "|url-access=limited".
• Mark references from The New Republic with "|url-access=limited".
• Mark references from The New York Time with "|url-access=limited".
• Mark references from The New Yorker with "|url-access=limited".
• Mark references from Rolling Stone with "|url-access=limited".
• Mark references from Times with "|url-access=limited".
• Mark references from Vanity Fair with "|url-access=limited".
• Mark references from Vulture with "|url-access=limited".
• Mark references from The Washington Post with "|url-access=limited".
• Mark references from Wall Street Journal or The Wall Street Journal with "|url-access=subscription".

• Not a requirement, but done all of these. Kingsif (talk) 22:43, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

• The second reference after "Carolyn (Mattress)" needs to be properly cited.

• Done Kingsif (talk) 22:43, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

• the Guardian → The Guardian

• Done Kingsif (talk) 22:43, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

• Fix the four references titled "Archived copy".

• Done Kingsif (talk) 22:43, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

• syracuse → The Post-Standard

• Done Kingsif (talk) 22:43, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

• dramaleague.org → The Drama League

• Done Kingsif (talk) 22:43, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

• AP → Associated Press

• Done Kingsif (talk) 22:43, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

• The Wrap → TheWrap

• Done Kingsif (talk) 22:43, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

• Hollywood Reporter → The Hollywood Reporter

• Done Kingsif (talk) 22:43, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

• EW.com → Entertainment Weekly

• Done Kingsif (talk) 22:43, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

• TV Club → The A.V. Club

• Done Kingsif (talk) 22:43, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

• al → The Huntsville Times

• Done Kingsif (talk) 22:43, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

• NPR.org → NPR

• Done Kingsif (talk) 22:43, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

• SFGATE → San Francisco Chronicle

• Done Kingsif (talk) 22:43, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

• USA TODAY → USA Today

• Done Kingsif (talk) 22:43, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

• Irish Times → The Irish Times

• Done Kingsif (talk) 22:43, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

• chicagotribune → Chicago Tribune

• Done Kingsif (talk) 22:43, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

• Standard → Evening Standard

• Done Kingsif (talk) 22:43, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

• The second reference after "had attended" is missing a website.

• Done Kingsif (talk) 22:43, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

• EBONY → Ebony

• Done Kingsif (talk) 22:43, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

• rogerebert.com → RogerEbert.com

• Done Kingsif (talk) 22:43, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

• AP NEWS → Associated Press

• Done Kingsif (talk) 22:43, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

• The reference after "too many saints" is missing a website.

• Done Kingsif (talk) 22:43, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

• Film Club → The A.V. Club

• Done Kingsif (talk) 22:43, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

• Wall Street Journal → The Wall Street Journal

• Done Kingsif (talk) 22:43, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

• Republic World is not a reliable source.

• It kind of is for this kind of social thing (or at least it is often used for such), but since there are many references there it's easy to remove. Kingsif (talk) 22:43, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

• EL HERALDO → El Heraldo

• Done Kingsif (talk) 22:43, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

• TELEMUNDO → Telemundo

• Done Kingsif (talk) 22:43, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

• wltx.com → WLTX

• Done. And thanks for the effort in compiling this! Kingsif (talk) 22:43, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

• The reference after "the same day" is missing a website.

• Done Kingsif (talk) 22:43, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

• The text "Nikkolas Smith verified Instagram account" is not necessary.

• Removed Kingsif (talk) 22:43, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

• NME | Music, Film, TV, Gaming & Pop Culture News → NME

• Done Kingsif (talk) 22:43, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

• The AV Club → The A.V. Club

• Done Kingsif (talk) 22:43, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

• The reference for Rhyme Deferred in #Playwright needs to be properly cited.

• Done Kingsif (talk) 22:43, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

• The reference for Hieroglyphic Graffiti in #Playwright is missing a website.

• Fixed ref Kingsif (talk) 22:43, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

• Optional, but linking websites would be helpful to future readers.

• Done the ones I've noticed Kingsif (talk) 22:43, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Progress

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

• I see you're already here, but @Some Dude From North Carolina: I've responded to all. Kingsif (talk) 22:48, 24 March 2021 (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.

Semi-protected edit request on 7 July 2021

Howard University Doctor of Fine Arts. Honorary Doctorate received 2018 Wikiwiz1341 (talk) 18:52, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:21, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Small Edit Request ("What if")

Could the tense about the part regarding his role in "What if" be changed to past tense, since currently it states that "he will appear voicing an animated T'Challa (who becomes Star-Lord) in multiple episodes of the 2021 Disney+ series What If...?"

 Done. – ChannelSpider (talk) 09:39, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

I also must point out that Boseman was not Star-Lord T’Challa in every What If appearance, as the article currently reads. The middle two were variants where he did become Black Panther.--141.157.254.24 (talk) 05:52, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done [11] Kingsif (talk) 16:11, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2021 and 30 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Krispykreme4.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:08, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 June 2022

Under ‘Philanthropy’ section, change “St. Jude’s Hospital” to either “St. Jude” or “St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital.” 2601:602:9600:F780:D175:438A:4085:5EF1 (talk) 18:36, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:34, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 November 2022

156.195.87.104 (talk) 14:49, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

AND AS U SEE I AM NOT DEAD, was one of his words in blackpanther movie and we wanted him to say it again and prove that he didnt die and that was just a rumor

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Jiltedsquirrel (talk) 14:56, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

"Tributes" section updates

Haven't edited Wikipedia in a long time so I figured it'd be less messy for me to request an edit from those more practiced than me. Is it worth having a paragraph addressing Black Panther: Wakanda Forever under the Tributes section to briefly discuss the tributes to Chadwick in that film? i.e. the specialized intro, the rewritten script, and (if no spoiler policy prevents it) the ending of the film/mid credit scene? Thanks. Sincerely, Thrashmeister [ U | T | C ] 20:10, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

@Thrashmeister  Done. Was surprised it took so long. — VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 10:25, 26 November 2022 (UTC)