Talk:Dakota Fanning

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality.

Dakota Fanning is a former good article candidate. There are suggestions below for which areas need improvement to satisfy the good article criteria. Once the objections are addressed, the article can be renominated as a good article. If you disagree with the objections, you can seek a review. Date of review: No date specified. Please edit template call function as follows: {{FailedGA|insert date in any format here}}

Age: 12

Contents 1 Cat n the hat fish img 2 Quote 3 Scandinavian descent? 4 Unprofessional message? 5 "The Official Dakota Fanning Countdown" 6 Dustin Putman quote 7 Charlotte's Web release date 8 Campaign to save wild horses? 9 Starlight Starbright 10 Im sorry she is not 11 years old!! 11 Upcoming films 12 Leno appearance 13 Death hoax 14 GA comments 15 Reasons for POV tag 16 Kim Possible: A Sitch in Time 17 .... 18 Height, War of the Worlds

[edit] Cat n the hat fish img

Hehe, well I asked for an image and got one. I know that pics from movies and/or "movie posters" for the actors usually are accepted, however this one I wonder about. It doens't specifically show the actor.. Any comments? I would RV, but prefer to see if anyone thinks it should stay or go.

<>Who 03:04, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Quote

There's a quote that's been attributed to Dakota that keeps getting added and removed [1]. Just yesterday I stumbled across its source: http://www.moviejuice.com/2005/war.htm So it's an obvious jokes and any future entries should be removed. --Bacteria 06:46, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. This only can be allowed in Uncyclopedia, not in this Wikipedia. --onWheeZierPLot 15:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scandinavian descent?

A lot of quickie web profiles say she's "of Scandinavian descent". They stem, no doubt, from the IMDB entry. Does anyone have a good source for that? IMDB is often wrong. Vulturell 22:47, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Unprofessional message?

Just after Filmography, there's the

DAKOTA IS THE BEST YOUNG ACTRESS EVER!!

message. I looked in the code, but couldn't find the text to delete.

[edit] "The Official Dakota Fanning Countdown"

This external link has been added repeatedly by three users in Hawaii (where the website is registered) and by a fourth in Bardstown, KY (go figure...). This fansite is not "official" in any way, and it appears the site's owners may be attempting to advertise the site's commercial tie(s). 66.91.29.200 (talk), 67.53.47.217 (talk), 66.8.140.106 (talk) and 208.45.201.18 (talk) have been warned, with no response. Editors, please feel free to keep an eye peeled. RadioKirk 21:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dustin Putman quote

Dustin Putman is some random gay guy from Virginia who runs his own movie review website called "The Movie Boy". His reviews are not published anywhere of great note or respect, and his site is entirely self-created. I don't think that quoting him in this article (with a citation no less) is particularly constructive, any more than the opinion of the man on the street. Pacian 08:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Why not? Many film reviewers are independent. Your objection borders on the offensive... RadioKirk talk to me 14:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Independant but respected and published is one thing; independent and "just some guy with his own website" is another. He is not notable, nor is his website. If you are offended by fact, I apologize, but this is an encyclopedia, and to be cited a comment must be more than just relevant. I think Britney Spears is a hack; does that mean my opinion should be included in her article? Of course not. Pacian 17:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

"[S]ome random gay guy from Virginia who runs his own movie review website" could be considered offensive, both to gays and to people who run their own websites. For the record, I didn't include the quote, but I didn't find it worthy of deletion, either... RadioKirk talk to me 18:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

If you read my brief bio here on wikipedia you'd see that I myself am gay. I didn't cite his sexual preference as some sort of reason why his opinion is not noteworthy; if anything your asumption that this is what I meant is the only thing potentially offensive. To me it is just a natural to describe him as "some gay guy" as it is to describe him as "some guy." The POINT is that ANYBODY can start their own website and write their opinions on things - and that's what a movie review is, an opinion - but only people who are NOTEWORTHY in their profession or field deserve to be cited or quoted in wikipedia. "TheMovieBoy" is not, and he does not. Pacian 06:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Regardless, "some random gay guy" reads as potentially offensive; I don't like it when blacks call themselves and each other "niggaz" either—it perpetuates a stereotype, IMHO. However, I now regret even mentioning it, as the issue distracts from the point at hand: It's not whether Putman's quote is from someone who is relevant, but that rather the quote is relevant to the article and its subject—again, IMHO. I feel Putman succinctly worded what many reviewers have said (or hinted at) and, therefore, I (for one, anyway) felt the quote should stay. RadioKirk talk to me 13:44, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand how someone with so much experience on Wikipedia, especially someone who thought himself good enough to be nominated for adminship, could possibly feel this way? There are rules and standards here, and you're totally ignoring them! It doesn't MATTER if he "succintly worded what many reviewers have said", because he is a big fat NOBODY!. I hate to be so crass about it, but the fact of the matter is, people who are not noteworthy are simply not acceptable as contributors of opinion in Wikipedia! Wikipedia is expected to maintain a NPOV, and if someone's opinion on a subject is going to be entered into an article, it is expected that they be a NOTEWORTHY EXPERT ON THE SUBJECT; otherwise it is simply not acceptable. For example, I think that Madonna's performance in Swept Away was crap. Just because *my* opinion is on par with what most professional critics think, should there be a mention in the Swept Away article that says "User: Pacian thinks the movie was crap." Of COURSE NOT. I'm flabbergasted that this is even an issue of debate; it's so crystal-clear to me!!! Pacian 14:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

So, this becomes an attack on me? Since you're aware of my RfA, you will also know that my response thereto was, "I've given this a lot of thought and, while my participation has been brief and would remain fairly narrow in the grand scheme of things, I believe I can contribute as an admin. Therefore, I humbly and gratefully accept [the] nomination." During its rejection, I noted, "[i]f indeed it turns out the consensus is that I need more experience, then I do not disagree, nor do I take it personally". That aside, I find it particularly interesting that you liken my belief that a reviewer's quote is relevant to adding my personal opinion ("should there be a mention in the Swept Away article that says "User: Pacian thinks the movie was crap." Of COURSE NOT."). For the record, I have seen exactly one Dakota Fanning film. As I assist in the maintenance of this and several other articles on Wikipedia, my only motive is clear: The creation of a good, succinct and relevant read. What's your motive? Hatred of Dustin Putman? Hatred of me? Summary dismissal of opinions that differ from yours?

Let's settle this: One of us (and, I don't care who) is now charged with finding a similar quote from someone you deem "relevant", and supplanting the existing quote. You want Putman to be irrelevant? So be it... RadioKirk talk to me 14:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Done. RadioKirk talk to me 20:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Um...dude, seriously? Chill out. How was that an attack on you? It seems like you're glossing over my points entirely and conceeding as if to make some kind of straw-man point! Why would I hate two people who I don't even know? I don't have time for hate. You have yet to concede to my being right, but the simple fact is that I *AM* right. This is Wikipedia standard, and standards are expected to be upheld. My entire point was that Dustin Putman is a self-proclaimed reviewer, one without any accreditation or celebrated status as such; ergo his opinion is not acceptable for inclusion in a Wikipedia article. ANYONE can start up a website and write movie reviews; that does not make them on par with recognized, celebrated legitimate critics such as Roger Ebert or Leonard Maltin, or any number of people who are actually PUBLISHED (not self-published.) In point of fact when I brought up your own status on Wikipedia it was genuine confusion: I legitimatelly don't understand how someone who feels he is familiar enough with Wikipedia could POSSIBLY argue in favour of keeping this quote!!! I'm seriously flummoxed, because it just seems so clear-cut to me! Anyhow, thank you for locating an alternate quote. Pacian 23:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

You can be right as rain and go about it in the most incorrect way possible. You only invoked the concept of encyclopedic relevance after I took you to task for, to outward appearances, hating on Putman (who I'd never heard of before, by the way, he'd be loving the pub...) because you find him irrelevant. Meantime, you also continue to fail to embrace the concept that what you find "crystal-clear" is not universal by any stretch of the imagination. Tell you what: You admit I was correct to question your motives—given the initial presentation of your case—and I'll admit you were right about his encyclopedic irrelevance. RadioKirk talk to me 23:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Charlotte's Web release date

Since MattD12027 (talk) forgot to include a source, here's one RadioKirk talk to me 18:28, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Campaign to save wild horses?

User 67.8.114.218 (talk) removed the item "Dakota campaigns to save endangered wild horses from extinction." Finally, it occurred to me to check this out; I can find no reference to this "campaign" in several autobiographies, so I'm leaving it out. If someone else can find (and cite) a reputable source for this tidbit, by all means, reinsert. RadioKirk talk to me 21:06, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Wild horses aren't endangered! KinseyLOL 14:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Starlight Starbright

The talk about "Campaign to save wild horses" reminded me of Starlight Starbright, somethings she's actually involved in. Maybe someone who's not lazy like me (and bothers to get all the facts straight) should put it in. Arandomrabbit 22:59, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind, I think the caffine just kicked in. I'll do it myself. Arandomrabbit 23:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Im sorry she is not 11 years old!!

She does not look 11! oh my god! Are you sure she is not like 7 years old!? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.35.170.205 (talk • contribs) .

In response to the unsigned message above by 71.35.170.205 (talk)... okay, if you say so. She'll be 12 in a month or so ;) RadioKirk talk to me 03:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Dakota is 12 now. She used to look really young for her age, but in 2006 pics, she looks closer to her age. Her sister Elle is 7 years old! I think people look at IMDb pics, and watch I am Sam and forget that those were filmed several years ago. Even the movies that were released last year (2005) were filmed before then.

And it's not like 11 year olds grow at all or anything... Cburnett 05:24, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Of course, looking younger then they are is definitely a plus for a child actor. And its mainly the way she dresses and how she plays with dolls and all that makes people think she's younger, but she was home schooled, can't blame her.

[edit] Upcoming films

I removed all except Coraline, the only film I could confirm in a good source. IMDB is really good for nothing anymore, and certainly not reliable for this kind of thing. I also removed the Tony Scott quote - I couldn't find it anywhere online except Wiki. JackO'Lantern 03:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Fascinating... I'm pretty sure I'm the one who added the quote from Scott; if not, then I must've had a hand in restructuring the sentence. Now, it's only on Wikimirrors... RadioKirk talk to me 03:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. I don't think I should trust you anymore. You seem like a bad man. Bad. Man. :| JK. ;) --Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK! 03:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

LOL!!! RadioKirk talk to me 03:49, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, btw, I checked out that source for one of the "rumoured" films (forget the title, but it was an article on Elle). It was pretty outdated - circa 2004 - so I took it out of the article. No use in repeating two year-old rumours, right? JackO'Lantern 03:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Say RadioKirk, how far do you think we are from a featured article here? I think at least half-way, maybe more? Almost there? JackO'Lantern 03:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

If I had to judge by the process to get Lindsay Lohan and Karen Dotrice there, I'd say this article is maybe 1/3 of the way there... ways to go yet :) RadioKirk talk to me 04:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Leno appearance

This stuff:

She appeared on The Tonight Show With Jay Leno on November 10, 2003, where she declared that she and her sister share a room, and described The Cat in the Hat co-star Mike Myers as "very funny".

And this:

In a Tonight Show interview on July 12, 2005, Fanning revealed that she received a cell phone from War of the Worlds co-star Tom Cruise for her birthday, much to her parents' chagrin. She made a third appearance on The Tonight Show on October 19, 2005, in which she demonstrated her technique for selling Girl Scout cookies.

Are these mediocre observations the only reason to mention the Leno appearances?

If so, all of it should go. Reads as child-star fetishism, no encyclopedic relevance at all. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bustter (talk • contribs).

Well, certainly fancruft, and I tend to agree with you. Of course, as I've already noted, this article needs work. RadioKirk talk to me 16:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Death hoax

Just to let editors know: There was a mostly isolated, Internet rumor about Fanning's death; it turned out to be an altered CNN screen grab made by someone with too much time and not enough productive things to do. Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a fan site (among other things), it is my very strong opinion that any mention of this little incident on the main article should be nuked on sight. Bringing up such crap even if only to shoot it down lends it unintentional credence and likely inspires other cretins toward similar misdeeds. RadioKirk talk to me 14:25, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA comments

Reasoning behind a No vote: (1)The intro contains original research elements that contribute to poor readability. (2)The main body may need some streamlining.

(Note: I am not too familiar with who Dakato Fanning is, and only know her from the WOTW film, so I won't be able to give specific advice).

1) "She is considered by "film critics" to be among "the best child actors" of her generation." Where is this described in the article? I know she has won plenty of awards, and that she has been in many movies, that that she makes a lot of money, and that she has been on a lot of talk shows... but the the claim made in the intro can only be substantiated with very specific information. If you are seeking to promote Dakota's power as an actress, I highly recommend replacing that part with something equally glowing, but more substantive.

There are just examples (I have no idea if these are actually true or not).

-"Most prolific young actress of her generation" <-- been in a lot of high profile movies

-"Highly praised... numerous awards... critically acclaimed... etc

"she is one of the first major stars among the youngest members of Generation Y" <--- This is a slightly confusing opening. May want to simply this statement too.

2) "Streamline material to incorporate a more encyclopedic format": There are several entries within the body of the article that soften the article. For example: "She made a third appearance on The Tonight Show on October 19, 2005, in which she demonstrated her technique for selling Girl Scout cookies." Information like this gives the article a very fansite feel to it. I think this article would do well with the elaboratation of significant experiences at the expense of the fluffy bits. (If you can think of a theme, all the better.)

Hopefully, I'm not being too harsh, as this is has the nucleus of being a very good article. It has good references, is generally well written, and is stable. (I must admmit I have no idea if it is broad in it's coverage though). If these few small details are fixed, then I see no reason why this can't be a good article!

In any case, if you have any questions, feel free to comment back! Cheers. --P-Chan 22:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reasons for POV tag

Whoever wrote this article must be a big fan of her. (and by big, I mean really crepily obsessed) KinseyLOL 23:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, it seems really one sided. It should be inpartial. I tried to suggest an impartial edit before, but some obsessive fan like sent me a rude message. Some fans can't see she's not God. If she's not right for a role, but the fans think she is, no matter if the character is 16, with like black hair and very curvy, they are like make-up can take care of everything, as if she can play ANY role. It happens that an actor can't play every role. And it annoys me when fans are so diehard. I mean, I think she's good, but there are so many people obsessed over this little girl.

Annette fleming21:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

What's next? Shrines? How she smells? What she thinks about during school periods? y'know, soon they'll have the technology to turn Dakota into a boy, more than one of her, make her look younger/older, turn her into an Asian, and then all hope will be lost. KinseyLOL 20:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I know she was made in a laborotory.

Can we please consider the possibility that the articles' subjects may read these comments? Were Ms. Fanning a Wikipedian, you'd have just violated WP:NPA. RadioKirk talk to me 20:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

No offence meant, but if Dakota wasted her time caring about people's opinions, she couldn't be an actress. An actress knows to ignore comments, and we should be allowed to talk about her, because she is not a normal wikipedian and is not likely to be wasting her time on here at all. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.163.118.146 (talk • contribs).

Just because someone "knows to ignore comments", it's not an invitation to break the bounds of civility. "I can say what I want because she can take it"? Please... and we wonder why everyone on this planet hates each other... RadioKirk talk to me 21:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't see this article as particularly slanted. The material in it, a mixture of stated facts and critical praise quoted from sources that, at first glance, appear to be reliable, is exactly the kind of text we want to see at Wikipedia, which is presumably why it was considered a good-article candidate. I see two main problems:

1. The points raised above in "GA comments" haven't been addressed. In particular, the intro paragraph cannot stand without a reliable source, and the "fluffy" bits (which seem largely unsourced) may go better in a "Trivia" section (to avoid detracting from the rest of the article) or be deleted as fancruft, however true they may be.
2. Balance can be achieved by quoting criticisms, including citations for their sources. If no critics have gone on record with concerns about her work (or anything else, in this celebrity-obsessed age), the balance issue is irrelevant. (I'm sure this is either not the case, or inevitably won't be for long, regardless of Fanning's activities. Nobody exists in the spotlight long without receiving professional criticism.)

The comments above that are critical of Fanning sound more like sour grapes than professional analysis of her acting merit. There will always be mega-fans and mega-haters of any celebrity, willing to claim bias against or toward the subject, respectively. The issue is what we write based on published data from informed professionals. And whether Fanning reads this article or not is completely irrelevant. Wikipedia exists to discuss notable subjects in an encyclopedic manner; the subjects themselves, by being notable, are left to their own devices to accomodate their notability and its consequences. Let's just stick to our goal of reporting documented information. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Abundantly correct. Just for clarification, my comment above was in response to the editor's assertion, "P.S. I know she was made in a (laboratory)." Talk page or no, such a comment violates WP:CIVIL at the very least. RadioKirk talk to me 04:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I figured that part was a joke. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not judging her based on anything besides her skills at acting. The reason this article is no longer one sided is because someone edited it. They must have because before, there were stupid remarks obviously made by a major fan. Something like how great she is as a person soley(as if they knew her) and not written as it shoud be in a wikipedian article. That's what I was addressing, but it looks like it has been taken care of. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.163.102.11 (talk • contribs) 14:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Assuming this means the POV objection has been taken care of, I've removed the POV tag. This doesn't remove the need to address the issues described above, of course. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

On which planet was War of the Worlds considered a critical success?

[edit] Kim Possible: A Sitch in Time

Can someone please add Kim Possible: A Sitch in Time to her filography?? I am not sure how to add it. I am not familiar with the structure. Lil Flip246 21:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ....

I think we should stop adding obsessive facts to this page that only an obsessed fan would know. Moistener 21:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. IAmTheOneAndOnly 13:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Height, War of the Worlds

I took off Dakota's height because a) heights do not belong in an encyclopedia unless she is an unusually tall or short adult, b) Dakota is not yet done growing and c) Dakota has not verified her height-- I've seen her listed anywhere from 4' 7" to 5' 1" and she has never told anyone how tall she is. I also added in War of the Worlds to her list of notable roles because she is now very famous for being in that. Almost very time I see the name Dakota Fanning, it says War of the Worlds next to it in parentheses. Stephe1987 02:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

You really shouldn't site the height for anyone under the age of maybe 16. 142.161.64.236 18:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Even better, height should not be in anyone's article unless its notability can be asserted. Unless it's an integral part of that person's fame—Gary Coleman would be a prime example—I'd argue that it's fancruft and does not belong in an encyclopedia. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 18:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Height is not really important, especially for a 12-year-old Child Actress who is going grow to be within the normal height range. Unless she is 6'+ (very tall for a girl) or is under 4' 8" as an adult, there is no reason for it to be on here.Stephe1987 03:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)