Talk:Claire Danes

message: The entire paragraph is silly, just because a (horrible) band like the ataris idolized her DOES NOT make her a "sex symbol" for punk rock youth. It gives a bit of a bad name to both sides. By that I mean Miss Danes and Punk rock. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Outinthered (talk • contribs) 10:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: in popular culture

message: Maybe I shouldn't start a new section; but User:SquareInARoundHole, who did most of the legwork for my side of this dispute, has been banned for reasons immaterial to this dispute, and I'm here holding the bag, and I want to get out in front of any attempt to make the ban grounds to dismiss what I continue to believe are good reasons to be more conservative in our treatment of the Manila city council's "ban" of Claire Danes in 1998.
The core of the case is this: there is good reason to suspect that Filipino lawmakers did not in fact ever do the less attention-grabbing and more (politically and economically) costly work of enacting a real-world ban of Danes's movies. The appearance of "will" and "should" in the earliest sources is something of an acknowledgement that this work remained at that time incomplete. There have been many exceptions to the claimed ban, and I don't see anywhere a positive statement that any film has not been shown in the Philippines because Claire Danes is in it and her films are forbidden. More hole than cheese?
The great majority of sources cited do say that Claire Danes and her films are banned in the Philippines, but without attribution, as though it were simply common knowledge. After, say, 1999, there isn't any serious writing here; it's all hastily written celebrity news. I think it is safe to say none of the writers called anyone in the Philippines, and if pressed for how they know Claire Danes and her films are banned in the Philippines would themselves offer a subset—likely only a few of the most recent—of the list of sources on this page. They googled it, and repeated what Google turned up, and now we are repeating them. I just think we should be careful. It looks to me like we are getting it wrong, and I feel the sourcing should be stronger. I agree there is plenty of it, but it's all such thin gruel. Am I crazy? Am I the only one who thinks chatty star gossip and listicles aren't reliable for claims about what is and is not legal in the Philippines?
As for the quotes that outraged the Manila city council, I maintain we absolutely cannot justify any synthetic quote combining words from the Vogue interview with words from the Premiere interview, even if we're repeating AP's synthesis. No room for argument, here.
I think the desire for this episode to be longer than one or two sentences lies for some editors in a feeling that Danes deserves a bit of the pillory. I think we should be wary of this feeling. I think the whole thing should be summed up briefly and drily. I don't think SquareInARoundHole's ban weakens the case for being more circumspect in wikivoice; I also don't think it is fair to accuse SquareInARoundHole of bludgeoning. I will admit that seeing SquareInARoundHole's handle in red did give me pause; I recalled the invocation of stormfront.org, way up above, in kneejerk response to an editor raising good faith UNDUE worries; I recalled the unpleasant appearance of a discretionary sanctions alert on my own talk page over this dispute; and I will say I feel a little chilled. I am in no way "emotive" about this issue—but maybe I really should find a topic I won't get blocked for talking about.
Sorry for going on and on again; I admit I have a hard time controlling it. Regulov (talk) 11:57, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fresh Philippine section