This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Brett Ratner article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
"He was also linked to young actress, Lindsay Lohan."
First, a punctuation point: s.b. no comma after "actress".
Second, what does "linked to" mean that makes it different from "dated" as in the previous sentence? Third, there's no citation.
And fourth, does anyone besides me doubt the encyclopedic value of who he, or anyone, dates? -- Tenebrae 02:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
If you start discriminating against the reporting of which relationships one constitutes as being "encyclopedic", you just run into a really huge area of arbitrarity.
It's been reported all over the place he either dated or "mentored" Lindsay Lohan, let it be posted.
The article asserts that:Brett Ratner was born in Miami Beach to Marcia Ratner, a Cuban-born Jewish socialite. This, however, does not mean that he is of Spanish or Mestizo descent. Many Jewish people migrated to Cuba, especially when it was the center of a large gaming industry in the 1940s and 1950s. Some Latinized their names, and others retained their Germanic Jewish surname. 72.73.214.37 18:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)Lestrade
None of these seem to have any importance to the details of his life. It might as well be a trivia section, in which case it is against the wikipedia rules. L.cash.m ( talk) 07:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
the paragraph about oral sex is not very relevant (trivia). it cited an interview [2] where ratner might have been joking around. as worded, it implied he is gay; if he is, it is certainly not citeable (he dates women). could i get justification why it was reverted? should it be removed or reworded? Substatique ( talk) 21:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Every time I look at this article I delete that part. It's just totally irrelevant. Maybe if there was a trivia section on Ratner that'd be sensible to include, but theres no reason to have this placed in his personal life section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Killz0ner ( talk • contribs) 01:32, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I also think that this should be removed due to its irrelevance. However, I see that one of the recent "reverts" was by an administrator. curious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erin0027 ( talk • contribs) 17:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Surely it doesn't belong here anyway and would (maybe) be mentioned in the Rush Hour 3 article? -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 14:19, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Brett Ratner lost his virginity to a parapalegic who was hanging from a tree. It's actually true, would be interesting to add a bit to the article about it. Here's a reference: [3] 75.127.214.162 ( talk) 19:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Has he done any pornography? 180.180.162.52 ( talk) 09:43, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Where did the controversies section go? He has made headlines a lot doing dumb things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.153.215.39 ( talk) 22:28, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Brett Ratner. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://Rat%20PressWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:38, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Brett Ratner. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:50, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
The section should be removed, which I will do with reference to similar issues noted here first, then here, and and once again, here. In those very similar edits, the users were new editors who apparently were unfamiliar with the guidelines explained. -- Light show ( talk) 17:00, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Underrated or overrated, this article doesn't discuss it. The career part of this article is so neutral it is like water, pH 7. It feels like there's a lot missing. What defines the directing style of Brett Ratner? Does have any recurring motifs? I think it is fair to say he has been commercially successful but not well liked critically, but the article doesn't address any of that.
In 2017 Peter Bogdonavich said Ratner was underrated, which got me thinking. Has his commercial success caused him to be underrated as a director or is it an unrelated separate thing? Maybe that and more could be included in the article, but at the moment the article tries so hard to be neutral that instead of striking a balance between different opinions it says almost nothing at all. -- 109.79.176.69 ( talk) 15:12, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
I reduced "Ratner at the 2012 Tribeca Film Festival" to "Ratner in 2012", with the edit summary "caption trimmed, see MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE". FMSky reverted this with the edit summary "Doesnt mention captions at all". MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE states "The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance." There are many film festivals, and they are our main source of film/television people images. Including the actual event adds nothing of value, and is simply infobox clutter, and contrary to the MOS. I have removed such extraneous detail from numerous other infoboxes - any good reason why this one should be an exception? Edwardx ( talk)
An editor has recently objected to the sexual assault allegations having their own section, citing WP:CRIT, and suggesting those allegations should be moved to the "personal life" section. WP:CRIT is an essay, of course, and not policy. I'd also argue that the allegations fit after the career section, both chronologically and logically. For the latter, all of the allegations involve his behavior in his capacity as a producer/director, and are directly tied to women's experiences while collaborating with him professionally. Additionally, the allegations effectively ended his career (at least thus far), making them a more logical fit after discussion of his career projects.
As far as WP:CRITS goes, reporting on well-publicized allegations (that were an integral and early part of the MeToo movement) in their own section makes sense and isn't undue in the way that the CRITS essay argues against controversy sections. In fact, I'd say that burying them in the personal life section minimizes them in an inappropriate manner. Thoughts from other editors? IP, you should discuss here rather than ignoring WP:STATUSQUO. Grandpallama ( talk) 00:22, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
Dustin Hoffman's article may have placed the allegations under the Personal Life section, but they still maintain a separate subsection headerhow about doing the same for this one? Divide the personal life section into two subsections, "early life" and "sexual misconduct allegations". M.Bitton ( talk) 14:00, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
He hadn’t done any film and TV work after the sexual allegations came out and his last credit is in 2019 so I do not understand why his years active section didn’t go “1987-2019” and obviously I highly doubt he would be returning to film and TV work even if he moved to another country. His career is already over eons ago. RayKVega ( talk) 22:51, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
I found it strange that there is zero mention of Rebecca Gayheart, with whom he had a long term relationship (I navigated to his page after reading a bit about her). Seems like there is plenty of content for at least a brief Personal Life section. Cbsteven ( talk) 11:16, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Brett Ratner article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
"He was also linked to young actress, Lindsay Lohan."
First, a punctuation point: s.b. no comma after "actress".
Second, what does "linked to" mean that makes it different from "dated" as in the previous sentence? Third, there's no citation.
And fourth, does anyone besides me doubt the encyclopedic value of who he, or anyone, dates? -- Tenebrae 02:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
If you start discriminating against the reporting of which relationships one constitutes as being "encyclopedic", you just run into a really huge area of arbitrarity.
It's been reported all over the place he either dated or "mentored" Lindsay Lohan, let it be posted.
The article asserts that:Brett Ratner was born in Miami Beach to Marcia Ratner, a Cuban-born Jewish socialite. This, however, does not mean that he is of Spanish or Mestizo descent. Many Jewish people migrated to Cuba, especially when it was the center of a large gaming industry in the 1940s and 1950s. Some Latinized their names, and others retained their Germanic Jewish surname. 72.73.214.37 18:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)Lestrade
None of these seem to have any importance to the details of his life. It might as well be a trivia section, in which case it is against the wikipedia rules. L.cash.m ( talk) 07:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
the paragraph about oral sex is not very relevant (trivia). it cited an interview [2] where ratner might have been joking around. as worded, it implied he is gay; if he is, it is certainly not citeable (he dates women). could i get justification why it was reverted? should it be removed or reworded? Substatique ( talk) 21:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Every time I look at this article I delete that part. It's just totally irrelevant. Maybe if there was a trivia section on Ratner that'd be sensible to include, but theres no reason to have this placed in his personal life section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Killz0ner ( talk • contribs) 01:32, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I also think that this should be removed due to its irrelevance. However, I see that one of the recent "reverts" was by an administrator. curious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erin0027 ( talk • contribs) 17:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Surely it doesn't belong here anyway and would (maybe) be mentioned in the Rush Hour 3 article? -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 14:19, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Brett Ratner lost his virginity to a parapalegic who was hanging from a tree. It's actually true, would be interesting to add a bit to the article about it. Here's a reference: [3] 75.127.214.162 ( talk) 19:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Has he done any pornography? 180.180.162.52 ( talk) 09:43, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Where did the controversies section go? He has made headlines a lot doing dumb things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.153.215.39 ( talk) 22:28, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Brett Ratner. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://Rat%20PressWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:38, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Brett Ratner. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:50, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
The section should be removed, which I will do with reference to similar issues noted here first, then here, and and once again, here. In those very similar edits, the users were new editors who apparently were unfamiliar with the guidelines explained. -- Light show ( talk) 17:00, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Underrated or overrated, this article doesn't discuss it. The career part of this article is so neutral it is like water, pH 7. It feels like there's a lot missing. What defines the directing style of Brett Ratner? Does have any recurring motifs? I think it is fair to say he has been commercially successful but not well liked critically, but the article doesn't address any of that.
In 2017 Peter Bogdonavich said Ratner was underrated, which got me thinking. Has his commercial success caused him to be underrated as a director or is it an unrelated separate thing? Maybe that and more could be included in the article, but at the moment the article tries so hard to be neutral that instead of striking a balance between different opinions it says almost nothing at all. -- 109.79.176.69 ( talk) 15:12, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
I reduced "Ratner at the 2012 Tribeca Film Festival" to "Ratner in 2012", with the edit summary "caption trimmed, see MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE". FMSky reverted this with the edit summary "Doesnt mention captions at all". MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE states "The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance." There are many film festivals, and they are our main source of film/television people images. Including the actual event adds nothing of value, and is simply infobox clutter, and contrary to the MOS. I have removed such extraneous detail from numerous other infoboxes - any good reason why this one should be an exception? Edwardx ( talk)
An editor has recently objected to the sexual assault allegations having their own section, citing WP:CRIT, and suggesting those allegations should be moved to the "personal life" section. WP:CRIT is an essay, of course, and not policy. I'd also argue that the allegations fit after the career section, both chronologically and logically. For the latter, all of the allegations involve his behavior in his capacity as a producer/director, and are directly tied to women's experiences while collaborating with him professionally. Additionally, the allegations effectively ended his career (at least thus far), making them a more logical fit after discussion of his career projects.
As far as WP:CRITS goes, reporting on well-publicized allegations (that were an integral and early part of the MeToo movement) in their own section makes sense and isn't undue in the way that the CRITS essay argues against controversy sections. In fact, I'd say that burying them in the personal life section minimizes them in an inappropriate manner. Thoughts from other editors? IP, you should discuss here rather than ignoring WP:STATUSQUO. Grandpallama ( talk) 00:22, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
Dustin Hoffman's article may have placed the allegations under the Personal Life section, but they still maintain a separate subsection headerhow about doing the same for this one? Divide the personal life section into two subsections, "early life" and "sexual misconduct allegations". M.Bitton ( talk) 14:00, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
He hadn’t done any film and TV work after the sexual allegations came out and his last credit is in 2019 so I do not understand why his years active section didn’t go “1987-2019” and obviously I highly doubt he would be returning to film and TV work even if he moved to another country. His career is already over eons ago. RayKVega ( talk) 22:51, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
I found it strange that there is zero mention of Rebecca Gayheart, with whom he had a long term relationship (I navigated to his page after reading a bit about her). Seems like there is plenty of content for at least a brief Personal Life section. Cbsteven ( talk) 11:16, 12 June 2024 (UTC)