Talk:Ginnifer Goodwin

Untitled

I wasn't aware she was Jewish... A great big Mazel Tov to her, she's such a good actress! The Amazing Turnip 18:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Neither was I but I suspected it based on her last name, and now that I read her school history, I added her to the Category:Jewish American actors. And I agree with you on the Mazel Tov to her, she's terrific. Cheers!--RobNS 20:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Margene is only a "supporting" character on Big Love? I really don't agree. Should it be changed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.30.93.85 (talk) 15:27, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 06:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

BLP

Response to edit summary here

One's children is a significant part of any person's biography; professional biographers do not leave out the names of children in books, articles, etc. And the parents themselves consider their children's names and births significant, since they themselves announce it in official statements and even on the covers of magazines, who pay the parents hundreds of thousands of dollars are more. No one would do that if the public and the parents did not consider these things significant. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:30, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

How does including the name of a non-notable minor child (who has no contribution to anything other than being born) improves a BLP article? While not a specific policy, it's always been understood (by me and several long-time editors I've come across) that the names and identifying information of non-notable minor children are to be left out of articles for reasons of privacy. Nonetheless, the following (found at WP:BLPNAME) is policy: "The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons. The names of any immediate, ex, or significant family members or any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP may be part of an article, if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject. However, names of family members who are not also notable public figures must be removed from an article if they are not properly sourced." is clear. The name of a non-notable minor child that doesn't enhance a reader's understanding of the article subject. It should be left out on this premise alone. While some might argue that the names of celebrity children are announced publicly all the time, therefore, their names should be included in Wikipedia articles, this is true and not true. Kanye West and Kim Kardashian's child, North, falls into this category. We are all aware of how over publicized the couple is. The same would be true with Michael Jackson's children when they were born and growing up. Siri Cruise's name would also apply here. These children, however, attained notability because of the amount of publicity their parents/families allowed prior to and after their births as well as during their growing up years. The children of Ginnifer Goodwin/Josh Dallas and Kelly Clarkson do not fall into this category. Their minor children remain non-notable. When they become notable (whether as minor children or as adults upon reaching age 18), then it would be appropriate to name them in the articles on their parents. At this point in time, knowing the names of these children do not enhance the article nor does it assist in the reader's complete understanding of the article subject. That is how the policy reads. I maintain that leaving these names out of the respective articles is the correct action in accordance with policy. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 17:03, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Winkelvi has been edit-warring to remove my posts from this talk-page discussion so that most of my comments, including a four-part rationale disagreeing with his interpretation of BLP, have disappeared. I won't be baited into edit-warring, as he's doing, and I've taken this up at an ANI. But removing the bulk of another editor's comments so that primarily only your own comments appear on a talk-page discussion is completely beyond the pale. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:35, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I removed it because copying and pasting entire user talk page entries is unrelated and inappropriate on article talk pages. I could speculate here why you did it, but won't. What I will say is that by copying and pasting directly from my talk page (and including content that was completely unrelated) you were commenting on an editor (me) rather than content and were not discussing how to improve the article. If you want to copy and paste your "four-part answer" and include it here, do it. But don't reference it and copy it as user talk page discussion including followup comments you made at the same page. My talk page contents are not germane to the discussion about this article. Frankly, I see the inclusion of such as an intimidation tactic bordering on harassment.

If anyone's interested in the particulars of Tenebrae's beef with me and his subsequent actions, it can all be viewed at ANI here: [1] -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 17:52, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

The post Winkelvi summarily and unilaterally deleted contained a four-part rebuttal to his fringe interpretation of BLP, so it was completely pertinent. I've never heard of someone owning a talk-page before, where only he can decide what other editors can and can't say in rebuttal to him, but that appears to be what is happening here and on two other pages he's taken over. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:14, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

To respond to Winkelvi's additions to his 17:03, 22 June 2014 post: He makes an arbitrary distinction based on his own personal gauge: Kim Kardashian and Michael Jackson's non-independently-notable children are fine to mention but not Ginnifer Goodwin's. What's his criterion? His own opinion of what's widespread-enough coverage. Where does one draw the line? One million readers/viewers? 10 million readers/viewers?

Whereas a completely objective and neutral criterion is whether the celebrity parents themselves chose to announce the births and names of their children in news releases to mass-circulation magazines, newspapers and entertainment-news TV shows. Some celebrities choose not to do that, and in those cases, we shouldn't make public what the parents themselves are keeping private. But when parents stand on rooftops and make announcements over megaphones, it's absurd to suggest they're demanding privacy, or that this biographical information that appears widespread in hundreds and hundreds of news outlets should be kept hidden and secret on Wikipedia. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:14, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Policy on this remains clear:

"The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons. The names of any immediate, ex, or significant family members or any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP may be part of an article, if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject. However, names of family members who are not also notable public figures must be removed from an article if they are not properly sourced."

Adding the name and exact birth date of a a non-notable low-profile minor child of a celebrity is not relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the article subject. Saying the child exists and giving a birth month and year is sufficient mention.

-- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 00:35, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Winkelvi's approach is the more appropriate here. There is a stronger trend towards the removal of the names of non-notable minors on Wikipedia. Some celebrity parents may be less adverse to allowing the often-harmful scrutiny of the public eye on their children, but there's little-to-no encyclopedic value from indulging them in those cases. Describing editorial discretion as "arbitrary" is not an argument against it. We decide what goes in an article. We judge on a case-by-case basis. If there's no clear consensus to include the material, it should be removed until there is. That's editing a BLP with a conservative regard for the subjects. There's no policy that insists non-notable children's names must be included because they were mentioned somewhere. I generally support removing them.__ E L A Q U E A T E 09:14, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

They are no longer "low-profile" when the parents put them on the covers of magazines or tell millions of people in magazines, newspapers, and entertainment-news TV shows. (Nothing in this discussion, BTW, involves anything not properly sourced. We are only talking about children the parents themselves ballyhoo to millions of readers/viewers in RS magazines, newspapers and TV shows.)

When Kim Kardashian's child North or Gwyneth Paltrow's child Apple or any other is all over the news, readily available even in the footnote we'd add for "have a child", I'm not sure how it advances an encyclopedia's mission, usefulness or credibility to hide or to keep "secret" a quickly accessible, biographically pertinent fact that appears in newspapers, magazines and TV show reaching, literally, millions and millions of people. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:49, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Also, I've got relatively minor surgery tomorrow, so if I don't respond for a couple of days, that's why. Please know I hope to remain a part of this conversation. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:10, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Elaqueate that the content should be removed and why. BLPs are to be treated differently than non-BLP articles. Have taken the non-notable minor child's name and birth date out of the article. Hopefully it will stay that way, but consensus according to policy is preferred rather than continued arguing and contention. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 17:33, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Please stop repeating the exact same comments/discussion across three talk pages. Consolidate discussion here, (or even another talk page, but mirroring the exact same conversation across multiple talkpages is painful and inappropriate.) __ E L A Q U E A T E 15:49, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for finally saying it, Elaqueate. Personally, I was afraid to say anything to Tenebrae about the ridiculousness of the same conversation happening at three article talk pages. I expected to be taken to AN/I again. This time for being uncooperative or something along those lines. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 16:32, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Removing name of child

As it turns out, Goodwin and Dallas' representative did not release the name to mainstream media, and in fact the cited source here gives no name. If the parents announce it, it's an encyclopedic fact. If not, we don't source to tabloids. I've removed the uncited name here and will do so at Josh Dallas. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:02, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Consensus + removal of content

Per consensus at the BLP noticeboard (here:[2]), all identifying information on the article subject's infant child have been removed. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 19:46, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ginnifer Goodwin. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://faithinmemphis.com/2013/05/ginnifer-goodwin-comes-home-to-jewish-faith/

When 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: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:56, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Recent edit warring re: legal name in lede

Opening up discussion here per WP:BRD for those who want to discuss recent changes, reversions, edit warring over stage name and legal name. I have no dog in this fight other than I believe the lede should stay the same as it has been for months, years. Further, at least one source used as a reference regarding the name was unreliable, so we need something better to support that she has legally changed her name. As well, anything in the lede needs to be in the body of the article. If she has, indeed, changed her name legally to Ginnifer, then there should be something on that -- reliably sourced, of course -- probably in the personal life section. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:20, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

@Winkelvi: I think you reverted to the wrong version, because until recently it read "Jennifer Michelle Goodwin (born May 22, 1978), known professionally as Ginnifer Goodwin...". Anyway, you should know that 2600:100E:B107:E54E:F4CA:8466:8BA0:2C93 is an IPsock of User:Who R U?. I admit TVguide is my best source for the legal name change, but if that is unreliable then I agree the older lede should remain. Sro23 (talk) 01:38, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, in reality, neither version is the "right" version until a consensus has formed. Looking back to the end of 2015, however, you are correct that it read as you noted above, Sro23. How about we leave it be for now and try to form consensus here regarding which version would most closely reflect MOS policy and guidelines. TV Guide is not a horrible source, however, it's not quite reliable enough for something as important as an encyclopedia article claiming there was a legal name change in a specific year. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:49, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I support the older lead. The current lede is "Jennifer Michelle "Ginnifer" Goodwin...". However, "Ginnifer" is neither a nickname nor a shortened version of the name "Jennifer", it is in fact her professional name, which is why in my opinion the older lead reads better (and it has remained stable throughout the years). Sro23 (talk) 02:18, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I just reverted back to the older lede. It has remained stable for many years so consensus can be assumed. There has been no consensus for this new lede, so I reverted to the version before any edit warring. We can still keep discussing the issue, but I don't think it should be changed until consensus is reached. Sro23 (talk) 00:28, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Please don't revert to your preferred version while there is a consensus seeking discussion still open. Best to wait and see if others will comment. There's no rush, and Wikipedia has no deadline. Personally, I now prefer the newer version, so, no -- there is no clear consensus for either version yet. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:02, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I was trying to restore the long stable version, before any block evasion/edit warring. This here is actually my preferred version, but I won't be changing it anymore. Sro23 (talk) 02:52, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Ginnifer is not her nickname and we should not be falsely saying it is. Period. WP:BLP is being violated otherwise. 107.77.192.49 (talk) 18:04, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

And you have been blocked for edit-warring. So the mic appears to have been dropped on you. When you get back, perhaps you'll discuss this without the 'my way or the highway' attitude. Cheers. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Welfare State ‖ 18:48, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for focusing on the contributor and not content. It's been 24 hours and still no one has said why we shouldn't make it clear Ginnifer is a stage name, not a nickname. So the longstanding text will be reinserted. 107.77.192.118 (talk) 19:43, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Please stop trying to own this article. I'm not exactly happy with the lead as it currently stands either, but edit warring is not the way to resolve disputes. I truly don't know if it's a stage name, nickname, legal name change or whatever, but right now there isn't clear consensus for what the lead should be so the wisest decision is to just leave the text alone until consensus is established. No more undiscussed changes.Sro23 (talk) 03:17, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Now that the article has been protected for a while, I'm sure we can have a reasoned discussion about the lede without all the edit-warring. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Union of Opposites ‖ 07:23, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

It would help if we could find some reliable source about the name change. The ref used is a David Letterman interview. Can anyone find that? Though I wonder how much she said. I doubt she said it was a 'legal name change' in a casual late night show format. Sro, you said you had a TV Guide ref? That would help. I'd lean towards the 'known professionally as Ginnifer Goodwin' wording unless other info is unearthed. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Health and Welfare ‖ 07:37, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Never mind, I see the TV Guide refs. It does appear she changed her name legally to Ginnifer. So would it be "Ginnifer Goodwin, born Jennifer Michelle Goodwin"? --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Repel All Boarders ‖ 07:42, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure. There are some issues with the TV guide ref: it is a little old, published before she supposedly changed her name, and it also mentions non-reliable source TMZ. Sro23 (talk) 15:22, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I would love to find a reliable source, published after the date of change, that says she has legally changed her name. In my searches yesterday, though, I couldn't find one. —C.Fred (talk) 17:59, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

If you search for the case number BS131041 in the court's records [3], the case summary pops up. The petition was granted on 13 May 2011. Document images are available, which would presumably confirm the name (I haven't tried as registration is required). This would be a primary source sure but that's OK for establishing a fact. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:02, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Is it? WP:BLPPRIMARY is pretty adamant about that: "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person." That why I've been looking for a secondary source. —C.Fred (talk) 19:12, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

So far, I can only find references to the name change as a future event and all in online Hollywood gossip rags. No reliable secondary sources to be found to verify. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:41, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Lede change resumed

Shortly after the expiration of page protection. No consensus was arrived at to alter the lede, so it should likely stay the same. And perhaps the page should be put under pending changes protection? --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Health and Welfare ‖ 07:38, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

BLP issue

An editor today was correct in removing the name of minor children that did not appear in the cited source and which the parents and their representatives themselves did not name publicly.

To avoid confusion, it should be noted that per this RfC, names and dates for children of high-profile public individuals are both encyclopedic and permitted when given by the parents or their representatives themselves in RS publications. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:08, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as well as this consensus-supported removal of the same content, [4] and the preceding discussion - all from almost exactly two years ago. Pinging Elaqueate. If you'd like, I can also ping Jehochman. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:59, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an essay. Anyone can write essays advocating anything. The "consensus-supported removal of the same content" simply says what I said right above: "An editor today was correct in removing the name of minor children that did not appear in the cited source and which the parents and their representatives themselves did not name publicly." It doesn't have anything to do with the much more recent RfC — you're comparing apples and oranges. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:53, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Consensus on this was not on your side in the discussion noted above. Nor was it on your side in a very similar discussion here [5]. There was another discussion at a noticeboard or project talk page where the same thing was concluded: names of non-notable minor children and their birth dates should not be included in articles. I take it from you continuing to respond to me that you don't want me to ping Jehochman? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 14:49, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

That 2014 discussion was not an RfC and did not end in any consensus for anything. This September 2015 RfC, however, reached absolute consensus that the relevant policies allow for names and dates for children of high-profile public individuals to be given when given by the parents or their representatives themselves in RS publications. It's settled. There's nothing to discuss unless you want to open a new RfC. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:54, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

If that RfC had taken place at this article and about this article, then I would buy what you're selling. The comments I've referred to regarding the same topic of discussion were about both Ginnifer Goodwin and her husband, Josh Dallas and their children. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:34, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Read carefully what I wrote at the top of this section. I wrote that I was agreeing with you about this article. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:50, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I see that now, since you've pointed it out after more than a week of back and forth arguing about the issue. I guess I missed it because, when you've approached or mentioned me in regard to anything, it's always been because you disagree with me. When that's the history, it's easy to assume the worst. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:45, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Children and BLP

Again, to avoid confusion: While the removal of non-notable children's names in this article is correct, the edit summary for it is not.

The edit summary read: "No names or other identifying information in BLPs on non-notable minor children per WP:BLPNAME and WP:DOB." That is true only when neither the parents nor their representatives have announced or confirmed this information. According to policy clarified by this September 2015 RfC, names and birthdates for children of high-profile public individuals may be stated when announced by the parents or their representatives themselves in RS publications. These parents did not do so, so no names or birthdates are given in this particular article.--Tenebrae (talk) 17:55, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

The discussion you mention is not, and never has been, the only or final word on BLPNAME and DOB regarding minor non-notable children of article subjects. Further, you continue to engage me, after being told not to do so any further. Would you like me to ping Jehochman on this to help? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:15, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

I didn't engage you. You wrote a blatantly inaccurate edit summary. I would have written a correction no matter who it was. And yes, contact him: I'd love to discuss how you refuse to honor clear RfC consensus in order to push your own POV. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:23, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Mentioning me without mentioning my username is engagement. Repeatedly mentioning me (without mentioning my username) on the same subject is engagement as well as a form of bludgeoning and pointiness. Since you seem to be on friendly terms with Jehochman (based on the notes you have left on his talk page in the past), I'll leave it to you to contact him and let him know of your repeated engagement here and at a noticeboard or two in the last few months. It will probably be taken differently by him coming from you than if it were to come from me (based on what seems to be a familiarity between the two of you, anyway). -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:03, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Zootopia prevalent idea

Good idea editing that! From now on, Ginnifer Goodwin will always be remembered as Judy Hopps in Zootopia! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.81.58.55 (talk) 21:32, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Best Animated Female

Ginnifer Goodwin/Judy Hopps won Best Animated Female, tied with Moana. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.81.58.55 (talk) 17:02, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Constellations

Hi, this is 172.250.87.105. I am sorry for any confusion I might have caused, but I think it does not cause any harm to add an upcoming project to an actor's page, and a theatre run isn't all that different. I wasn't trying to promote anything at all, I'm not affiliated with Ginny so it was kind of blunt and surprising when others made it that way. I was just adding another production she participates in onto her page alongside her other projects. Please state why the edit doesn't belong on the page. Thank you! - rosmaries19 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosemaries19 (talk • contribs) 21:44, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

A single cited sentence mentioning that she was announced for a project is fine. All the additional heaped-on stuff made it promotional. As a gesture of goodwill and in appreciation of your taking the time to discuss rather than edit-war, I'm inserting such a sentence now. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:57, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I see now that a very longtime, experienced editor has an objection as well and wants to wait until the project has actually taken place. As there is no deadline, I would go along with that editor. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:59, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ginnifer Goodwin. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091129063557/http://www.vogue.co.uk/news/daily/080619-ginnifer-goodwin-wins-maxmara-award.aspx to http://www.vogue.co.uk/news/daily/080619-ginnifer-goodwin-wins-maxmara-award.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131224100724/http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20496321,00.htm to http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20496321,00.htm

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: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:03, 17 October 2017 (UTC)