Talk:Winona Ryder

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleWinona Ryder has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 8, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
January 13, 2008Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article

"Marriage" to Keanu Reeves still listed[edit]

Since consensus was established to remove the mention of her marriage to Keanu Reeves, effective as of October 2018, the information is still listed 9 months later. I don't want to appear to be "stepping on toes", but isn't this going to be removed on their respective profiles? Tytrox (talk) 00:15, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for noticing. It was removed by the closing admin at the time, but no-one noticed when it was re-added a few months later. I have removed it again. --Meters (talk) 03:33, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is still being added repeatedly, against the RFC consensus at Talk:Winona Ryder/Archive 2#RfC: "Marriage" to Keanu Reeves. Meters (talk) 19:53, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New sources:

https://people.com/movies/keanu-reeves-really-married-winona-ryder-making-dracula/

https://globalnews.ca/news/8396187/keanu-reeves-winona-ryder-married/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.30.18.141 (talk) 01:51, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, see Talk:Winona Ryder/Archive 2#RfC: "Marriage" to Keanu Reeves Meters (talk) 03:39, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ex-boyfriends in infobox[edit]

@Sundayclose: Her relationships with Dave Pirner or Matt Damon are notable enough to be included in the article in the "Personal life" section, however the "partner" infobox parameter is for significant life partners only. The sources in the article only state that Pirner is an ex-boyfriend she previously lived with (no timeline even given) and that she dated Damon for two years. There is no source indicating that she did more than date either of them. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 20:11, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Abbyjjjj96: First of all, the article doesn't describe Pirner as an "ex-boyfriend"; that's your term. As for the source, she refers to "boyfriends" (plural), which could include anyone she has dated. If necessary, I can easily provide sources that do not describe him as an ex-boyfriend. Secondly, you are using your own opinion to define "significant life partner", and that doesn't work on Wikipedia. Template:infobox person describes partner as "unmarried long-term partner" but doesn't define "long term". In the absence of objective evidence otherwise, all of the relationships discussed in the article are considered partners. Additionally, all four have been in the infobox for eleven months, making that the implicit consensus. Unless consensus changes, leave it like it is. Sundayclose (talk) 20:25, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Sundayclose: I didn't use quotation marks, and it was hardly putting words in her mouth because she literally referred to him as one of the "boyfriends that I've had". As no timeline is given in the source regarding Pirner, there is no reason for him to be considered a long-term partner at all and so I will remove him from the infobox. As for Damon, I fail to see how dating for two years is considered long-term either, but as we're in disagreement there I will seek a dispute resolution. Also, it's not true that all four have been in the infobox for eleven months. Someone added them back in on 1 August 2020 (see Special:Diff/970695153). Granted I didn't click on every single edit in the revision history, but prior to that it seems like they were added back in on 20 March 2020 (see Special:Diff/946482178), and for a time only Depp and Pirner were listed (see Special:Diff/938901461). Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 21:00, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Abbyjjjj96: Do not remove Pirner; that will violate consensus. Sundayclose (talk) 21:02, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Sundayclose: I already did before this message came through. How does it violate consensus? You agreed partners included there had to be long-term. The source in the article for him does not give a timeline so the claim that he was a long-term partner is unsourced. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 21:04, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Abbyjjjj96: It has been in the article a while, even if removed for a period of time. Furthermore, after a discussion starts you wait for a consensus to make changes. You must get a new consensus to change it. And by the way, none of them is sourced as a "long term partner". That argument doesn't hold water. Sundayclose (talk) 21:06, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on ex-boyfriends in infobox[edit]

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the discussion.

Should Winona Ryder's ex-boyfriends Dave Pirner and Matt Damon be listed as former life partners in the infobox? I didn't think the relationships were significant enough to be included there but another user disagreed. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 15:28, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral RfC issue: Should David Pirner and Matt Damon be included in the infobox as partners?

NOTE: Editor's should look at the section immediately above this RfC for the initial discussion of the topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sundayclose (talk • contribs) 15:29, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: The first RfC description above violates the RfC rule of a neutral opening statement. It describes two people as "ex-boyfriends" without any reliable evidence that they are any different than any other "boyfriends". And it expresses user Abbyjjjj96's personal opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sundayclose (talk • contribs) 15:25, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Abbyjjjj96 has again invalidated this RfC by canvassing here. The request for input is acceptable; the description of Pirner and Damon as "boyfriends" introduces a bias. Sundayclose (talk) 00:05, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see have I have invaildated this RfC at all, yet alone again. Per WP:RfC: "When posting a notice at those locations, provide a link to the RfC, and a brief statement, but do not argue the RfC." How is referring to them as previous "boyfriends" not neutral? You even quote that word from the source in the discussion above. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 01:12, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
By inserting bias ("boyfriends") and your own opinion into the opening statement, that violates the rules for an RfC and invalidates it. Read WP:RFC: "Include a brief, neutral statement of or question about the issue". Then you made it worse by canvassing the same bias. Either you didn't know what you were doing, or you were intentionally disruptive, take your pick. Sundayclose (talk) 01:31, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You still haven't explained how "boyfriends" is bias, and you're ignoring the fact that you yourself quoted a source as saying "boyfriends" in the discussion above. If by my opinion you mean the "I didn't think the relationships were significant enough to be included there but another user disagreed" part, I wrote that because I thought I needed to explain why I was pursuing the RfC in the first place? I didn't realize that would be an issue. WP:RFCBRIEF says "If the RfC is about an edit that's been disputed, consider including a diff in the RfC question", so I don't agree that a sentence explaining why I was asking for other opinions makes the RfC invalid.
In the discussion above, you even agreed that the partners needed to be long-term, and when I removed David Pirner because the amount of time they were together is not mentioned in the source (and thus claims he was a long-term partner are unsourced), you moved the goal posts and acted as if every partner needed to be referred to as a "long-term partner" in the source. You also keep removing your signatures without explanation (1, 2, 3). Actions like these seem very disruptive (and this comment "There'll be a new RfC if this one is not decided properly") – it just seems like you're trying to disrupt the RfC because you don't want it to vote against your opinion. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 02:23, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You have entirely missed the point. You or I can express our opinions all we want, except in the opening statement of an RfC. I'm now more convinced that rather than being maliciously disruptive, you simply don't understand the RfC process. Either way I'm not arguing this point any further. The RfC is invalid. Don't bother responding to my comment because it's the last one I make on this issue. Sundayclose (talk) 02:27, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sundayclose, WP:RFC says If you feel an RfC is improperly worded, ask the originator to improve the wording, or add an alternative unbiased statement immediately below the RfC question template. Schazjmd (talk) 13:54, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Schazjmd: In fact I did add a neutral statement below the original biased statement, but it was after the RfC had already started. But the RfC is still invalid because the original biased statement is the first thing they see. Abbyjjjj96 then made it worse by canvassing with biased comments. I'm waiting to see how this malformed RfC is closed or dispensed with before taking action. If people can agree to our compromise I don't need to take action. That seems like the ideal solution. Sundayclose (talk) 15:35, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sundayclose, could you link me to the instructions or guidelines that support that an RfC is entirely invalidated because of a non-neutral/reclarified opening statement? I can't find them. Thanks. Schazjmd (talk) 15:52, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Schazjmd: The RfC instructions clearly require neutral wording. The first statement above is not neutral by any stretch of the imagination. See WP:RFC. Additionally, canvassing that can bias a discussion is also prohibited. It's up to the closer to decide if there is enough bias to sway a consensus. And I (or anyone) am well within my rights to challenge a malformed RfC. A lot of how this is handled by the closer may depend on how strong a consensus is. If there's not a clear consensus, nothing changes. If that happens, I'm still open to discussion of leaving the partner parameter blank. Sundayclose (talk) 16:00, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sundayclose, since you're only willing to accept the result of this RfC if you agree with the result, the whole thing is a waste of time. Schazjmd (talk) 16:05, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Schazjmd: Well, that depends on several things. If there is agreement to the compromise I don't consider it a waste of time. If the closer determines that there is no consensus despite the bias, I don't consider that a waste of time because sometimes discussions result in no consensus. As to whether it's a waste of time if I disagree with the way it's closed, that remains to be seen. I assume this current discussion will remain here for others to refer to if there is another RfC, but whether to remove it would be an admin's decision. And even if there is another RfC, it may end up not supporting my position; that's perfectly fine if it's done properly. Consensus can be difficult even in ideal circumstances. Unfortunately this one was made more difficult by the way the originator of the RfC handled it. Sundayclose (talk) 16:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Exclude. What would be considered a long-term relationship is difficult to define but ultimately the point of an infobox is to summarise key information, and a past two-year relationship mentioned once (just to say it happened) doesn't strike me as key information. WP:3O might have been good for this. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 14:58, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that other means of dispute resolution such as WP:3O should have been used before setting up this biased RfC. Sundayclose (talk) 15:26, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • INCLUDE - First of all, this is an invalid RfC because the opening statement is far from neutral. When this one is closed or deleted, I will open another neutral RfC.As for Pirner and Damon, user Abbyjjjj96 has used their personal opinion to define "significant life partners". The article does not identify anyone as a "significant life partner", and Pirner and Damon are discussed equally among all of Ryder's relationships. Sundayclose (talk) 15:25, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Sundayclose, for the record, alleged lapses in neutrality do not "invalidate" any RFC, especially when they are minor. If you are still concerned about this, then please ask for help from the other regulars at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:36, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exclude. Template:infobox person defines the partner parameter as unmarried life partners. IMO, this parameter should be used when there is a significant, long-term relationship that is widely noted in reliable sources (for example, Hawn and Russell). I don't think "someone X dated" = "life partner". Schazjmd (talk) 20:58, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, the "partner" parameter should be empty. I can agree to that as a compromise. Sundayclose (talk) 23:46, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that. @ReconditeRodent and Abbyjjjj96:, thoughts? Schazjmd (talk) 00:16, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer the parameter to be empty then list them all, however I think that Scott Mackinlay Hahn and possibly also Johnny Depp fit the requirements to be mentioned. Ryder and Hahn have been together for nine years thus far, and she and Depp were engaged for three of the years they were together in addition to the relationship being very high-profile. Depp is even mentioned in the lead. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 01:20, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Same old argument. Considering that this is an invalid RfC I suggest accepting either all of them, or none of them. Quit while you're ahead. Sundayclose (talk) 01:24, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exclude - her current partner is the only one I think meets the definition, in my opinion, (9+ years) of unmarried long-term partner, which is what the Template:infobox person actually defines the parameter as. Her other partners are mentioned in the body of the article, and I don't consider them long-term, again, imo. Isaidnoway (talk) 12:53, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exclude Definitely include Hahn (9 years and counting), and I think Depp qualifies too (4 years and an engagement). Meters (talk) 19:44, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exclude None of these are notable enough for the infobox. As an aside I see nothing here to justify invalidating the RFC. AIRcorn (talk) 22:09, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Aircorn "None of these" as in the two in the RFC, or in any of the four? And I agree that there's no reason to invalidate this RFC. Meters (talk) 22:46, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • The two mentioned in the RFC (Pirner and Damon). I have no opinion either way on the other two. AIRcorn (talk) 23:00, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exclude unless sources are provided that describe them as this thing, they are not this thing. People's opinions as to how long a relationship needs to last to be thing thing are irrelevent WP:OR. Hipocrite (talk) 15:37, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exclude unless sources so describe, per Hipocrite. Pincrete (talk) 04:49, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exclude Pirner and Damon, retain Hahn and Depp. Additionally, I see no rationale for invalidating this RFC. Cavalryman (talk) 14:21, 17 August 2020 (UTC).[reply]
  • CommentThe RFC proposer closed this, and then restored it once it was pointed out that that was not normal procedure. A formal close is not needed if we can agree on a result. Can we agree that there is consensus to exclude David Pirner and Matt Damon as infobox partners? Meters (talk) 21:36, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The question is, will Sundayclose abide by any local decision? Unless they indicate otherwise I doubt they will, they have repeatedly stated they believe this RfC to be invalid. If not, we should list this at ANRFC. Cavalryman (talk) 01:13, 20 August 2020 (UTC).[reply]
@Cavalryman: If you're awaiting a response from Sundayclose, know that on 15 August they agreed to stay away from this article and talk page for a week to avoid a 3RR block. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 12:06, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is acceptable for an RFC proposer to end an RFC once the result becomes abundantly clear. This is explicitly permitted in the instructions at WP:RFCEND. It is uncommon for RFC proposers to box up the discussion and write summary closing statements when they are "winning", but the normal procedure ("any uninvolved editor", i.e., no admin required) is not meant to be a total ban on the proposers doing that. We want to encourage RFCs to end early when the result is clear. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:42, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exclude None of the mentioned persons seems to be notable enough to be included into the article/infobox. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 10:54, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:21, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of WP:SYN inclusions[edit]

The article in its present form has WP:SYN inclusions not supported by the references provided. The statement , “Ryder has described herself as Jewish”, is not supported by the citations given. Neither is the sensationalist statement, “Most of her family on her father's side were murdered in the Holocaust”, which includes three citations. The first of which does not address the issue at all, while the third states that one relative was killed in a concentration camp. The second, in fact, states the contrary, “so’s most of my family. My grandparents made it out to America.” Assuming good faith, it was an error on the editor’s part, or perhaps as sometimes is also the case, an attempt to make an unwilling poster child out of a celebrity where facts points otherwise. I have excised the erroneous edits. Please do not revert unless new citations are provided that support such statements WP:BLP. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 21:59, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Free Winona[edit]

I'm wearing my t-shirt as I write this. I switched out the photo because the one of her smiling was goofy and caught her at a bad angle. I also removed the bit about shoplifting and tabloid journalism from the lead. It was 23 years ago and it's not that fricking relevant. Yes, the media loved every minute of it and Time magazine went crazy for a single day in November. And yes, we deserve a separate article on that incident. But does it deserve to be featured prominently at the very end of her lead section in 2024? No. Viriditas (talk) 10:01, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: - Some points I want to make:
1. I'm not going to question your adjustments to the lead paragraph. More power to you, in all sincerity. I believe that it is our responsibility to present Winona Ryder as an actress whose achievements deserves to be spotlighted in a more complimentary way. Similar articles of actors who were in the same situation don't consider their past mistakes to be the biggest highlight; unfair when comparing it to her article whose past mistakes were unfairly elevated before your edits.
2a. "Goofy" and "caught her at a bad angle"? That's understandable, given the scarce freely licensed photos which are usually public events with varying angles, varying quality, varying lighting.
2b. Just to indulge you, I'll justify keeping the 2010 Toronto International Film Festival (TIFF) photo: it's the most portrait-like photo of all of the available photos on Wikimedia Commons that has very little intrusive elements (e.g. group of people, nature, blurry captures), and decent lighting. When compared to more recent photos like Sundance 2015, or older photos at a Marc Jacobs event on Wikimedia, it is of higher resolution. However, that definition would also be applicable to the 2009 photo at Giffoni Film Festival (Giffoni) you selected: portrait-like, least intrusive, and high-res... and no TIFF promo texts.
3. I like both - so why I reverted it, is because I disagree with the inclusion of the 2009 photo as the infobox photo. Why I disagree with it: the original photo itself is underexposed and the lighting around her face is not well lit even after some adjustments. The one you selected is adjusted as far as it could, and it may work, but the 2010 TIFF photo is sufficiently lit from the moment it was captured, and it allows easier adjustments. That's one thing that keeps me from accepting that 2009 photo.
4. I will admit this is my personal opinion, but it is personal opinions informed by observations. However, if the consensus decides to go with the 2009 photo, I'll accept that as it is. Except there is no consensus... yet. I hope all of this explains it. No hard feelings. Misterpither (talk) 14:12, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I read your comments several times to let it sink in. This is obviously a stalemate, and I don't see what I could say to move this forward, other than I hope you won't oppose the addition of new or different images if and when they do present themselves. Viriditas (talk) 19:43, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Winona_Ryder&oldid=1219276576"