Talk:Winona Ryder/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Fansite tag

Article has way too much puff in it, including thew repeated use of the phrase "critical praise". Reads too much like a CV, showing off accomplishments and going out of the way to name co-stars. Thought that saying she "starred alongside" Portman and Kunis in Black Swan was a stretch, reduced the impact of the phrasing. As article stands, it is set up as if to say "Here's all the ways that Winona Ryder is awesome", rather than neutrally cover her bio. Not sure how it became a Good Article. Echoedmyron (talk) 19:45, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

agree that sentence in intro was not required, but disagree that whole article is written to a fans point of view.Monkeymanman (talk) 19:46, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
I also disagree that the article is written from a fan's point of view. A few sentences may need revising, but the fansite tag is completely unnecessary. Cresix (talk) 20:04, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Okay, maybe I'm applying that too strictly. But the way this article is written, you'd think she was Meryl Streep. I think it's more than just a "few sentences". The word "acclaim" appears five time alone, and her "performance" is specifically referenced by how wonderfully it has been reviewed by critics - often with direct quotes - on at least ten occasions. I wouldn't be surprised to see this type of promotion on say, her own website to help her get acting gigs; I don't think it belongs here, though. Echoedmyron (talk) 20:30, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
her "performance" is specifically referenced by how wonderfully it has been reviewed by critics - often with direct quotes - on at least ten occasions Thats the way almost every Bio on wikipedia has been written (including Ms Streeps, although not as poorly referenced), and is the wikipedia policy of using quotations from reliable sources to verify what is in the text. There are also quotations from critics (also reliably sourced) about how poor some of her work has been. There are also significant portions of the article devoted to her scrutinised relationships and shoplifting arrest which does not show her in such a promotional advert.Monkeymanman (talk) 20:44, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Maybe I'm not as experienced with BLPs of actors and it wouldn't surprise me that you yourself have more experience in that area; my point was that it reads like a movie poster. And yes, you do see similar things in the Streep article. Interestingly enough, that article has less instances of what I was talking about. Which is why I brought it up - I would expect that articles for actors would reflect some sort of comparative scale, for both achievements and acclaim. My feeling was that there was too much emphasis on Ryder's achievements in a positive light. At no point did I suggest that failures or controversy were not covered. At any rate, fine, I'll leave this alone, seeing as others are on top of things. Echoedmyron (talk) 21:16, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
You can add any negative reviews of her acting, as long as it is balanced, covers her entire career, and is reliably sourced. I think the criticism of her personal life is already sufficiently covered. Cresix (talk) 21:39, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
I dont think its a case of people being on top of things. I am certainly not the most experienced wikipedia editor and not the most experienced with BLP's but i have edited a few and it is the norm for critical analysis of a persons work to correctly structure a Biographical article. This normally (for one reason or another) amounts to positive criticism. Ms Streeps article is actually quite poor for an actor of her acclaim (perhaps something we could look into). I hope i havent scared you off and i would welcome your input into how parts of the article could be changed and improved but as a whole it certainly is not written from a fans point of view. Regards Monkeymanman (talk) 22:04, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Cigarette Smoking

One can find many references confirming that "Noni" smokes cigarettes. For example, she had a difficult time when filming her "Star Trek" part because she was not allowed to go outside for a smoking break so that the costume she wore would remain secret. But the underweight actress appears with a fuller figure at the "Black Swan" Premiere at 2010 Toronto International Film Festival. See http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/14/natalie-portman-winona-ry_n_716023.html . Gaining weight is a side effect of quitting smoking, but that might not be the reason. Q43 (talk) 07:36, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Problem with one of the sources

"Winona Ryder - The Biography" by Nigel Goodall is one of the sources used for this article. Now I own a copy of this book and I'm a fan of the book but the book doesn't have a bibliography and doesn't list any of the sources officially, mainly unofficially in the acknowledgements.

The author didn't do interviews with the subject or any of her family, I'd guess the author mainly used magazine articles and fan forums for his information. And not saying that's bad, but I don't feel that's appropriate to use as a source for a encyclopedia article, no matter how accurate it is. It's not a good foundation. Meme3234 (talk) 08:53, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

GPA Lies

I have removed the part about her graduating from Petaluma High School with a 4.0 GPA. I don't care what IMDB says, it simply is false. I know because I was a member of the same class as her. I graduated second in the class. She was not even in the top 10 students in our class, ever. We had a dinner every year honoring the top 10 in each class in town. She was never one of them. She didn't even graduate with us. After she started making so many films, she disappeared completely from school sometime during sophomore or junior year. I don't know how she finished high school, maybe did the GED, or maybe never finished at all. Unless she can produce a transcript with the 4.0 on it, which will never happen, you should not be writing these lies about her! It's a myth she created herself that has no foundation in reality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.232.190.140 (talk) 05:36, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


You sound pressed as a panini, sir. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:BCD1:4BD0:5921:8682:38C0:1C03 (talk) 23:31, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Pronunciation

The article should say how to pronounce her first name correctly. (I.e., how she and her acquaintances pronounce it). The archive has a discussion about it, and the outcome seems to be "wih-NO-na". However, "wih" is not a word and I am not sure how it is pronounced. Like "win" without the "n"?

The German wikipedia claims it is /wɪˈnəʊnə/, where "ɪ" is the same sound as in "bit".

I do hear "why-no-na" occasionally, but usually from journalists, who probably just don't know any better.

--The very model of a minor general (talk) 19:43, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Religion of Winona's father

In the 'early life & education' section it states that her father is Jewish, then later on states that he is an atheist. Which is correct? VenomousConcept (talk) 16:46, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I would assume that she is half-Jewish ethnically, but not Jewish religiously. Nymf hideliho! 16:59, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Good question, and much debated within the Jewish community. Best answer I have read: "Judaism" refers to a religion, while "Jewish" or "a Jew" also refers to an ethnicity that grew out of that religion. Her father could, then, be "Jewish" without believing in "Judaism." An ethnicity, by the way, is not a race.Profhum (talk) 08:26, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Winona Ryder. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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).

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 23:21, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

pictures

Wikipedia, 

   I appreciate being able to gather information on this site.  It has been very helpful to find out about so many different things.  However, I was concerned about certain pictures that may come up with certain definitions.  I was looking up the word effiminate, and found a picture of an undressed person, although I understand that it goes with the definition, I feel the the words are enough and that it is more tasteful to not unveil the human form.  I feel that in this day & age the things of propriety & decency have become so distorted, and even though I understand that the intent of this cite is to share the meaning of words, I would not be comfortable if my child stumbled across certain things, and I just feel it is in good taste to exercise more modesty in all things, so as to teach everyone how to be respectful of certain things.  I appreciate you taking the time to read this, and hope you will thoughtfully consider this.

Thank you. Sincerely, Julie Shumway ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.248.17.239 (talk) 17:45, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Winona Ryder. 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).

  • 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) 05:35, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Winona Ryder. 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).

  • 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) 14:32, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Winona Ryder. 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).

  • 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) 17:57, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Hiatus

Was she really on hiatus or just attached to small projects. The latter seems to be the case based on her imdb credits.4meter4 (talk) 15:03, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Winona Ryder. 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).

  • 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) 18:44, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Winona Ryder. 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).

  • 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) 17:46, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Hiatus is polite for Black Listed

Hiatus isn't inaccurate but perhaps misleading. Forced Hiatus would be more accurate.

"With many fearing she was having a complete meltdown films distanced themselves from the star and job offers dried up."[1]

I'm a big fan of Winona (she's only a few years younger than me) and I'm grateful she was able to make a comeback! Zerostatetechnologies (talk) 11:59, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2326335/Winona-Ryder-reveals-shoplifting-arrest-saved-her.html

Winona Ryder did not graduate from Petaluma High School with a 4.0 GPA

This false claim comes from Winona Ryder herself. She dropped out of PHS I believe in her sophomore year if I recall correctly to focus on her acting career. I was one of her classmates. If you can make an account on this site, you can view the full list of 1989 graduates as published in the local newspaper the Argus-Courier. Or search in the box for "Horowitz" and you will find she is not listed.: https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/235200481/

If you review honor roll lists published in the same newspaper in the previous years, you will find she is not listed either. Hence, not only is her graduation claim false, but her claims of having a 4.0 GPA are also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.45.28.224 (talk) 23:09, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Ryder's claim needs to be verified by multiple sources. The Argus-Courier's list of 1989 graduates could be inaccurate, and may have misspelled her birth name. Also, this list may not account for early graduates or GED recipients, who often do not participate in graduation ceremonies. PHS yearbooks or an official school district record might be useful in verifying her high school graduation. Msoul13 (talk) 16:29, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 September 2018

She did not marry Keanu Reeves. If you read the sources it's easy to see that this is a gross misrepresentation of the sources and a violation of WP:BLP. The sources are based on a lot of unfounded speculation. I suggest completely removing that paragraph. At the very least it should be reworded to properly reflect what's in the sources. Thanks. 75.182.115.183 (talk) 20:25, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. - FlightTime (open channel) 20:29, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

RfC: "Marriage" to Keanu Reeves

Overall consensus to remove Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:38, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

Should the paragraph stating that she married Keanu Reeves be removed, modified, or unchanged? The sources are based on far-fetched speculation and a violation of WP:BLP. 75.182.115.183 (talk) 20:46, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

  • Remove - The sources are grossly misrepresented and a violation of WP:BLP. 75.182.115.183 (talk) 20:47, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Remove - So they used a real priest to film a wedding for a movie and there are claims that this makes it a legal marriage. Maybe an interesting fact for the article on the movie, but WP:undue and unnecessary for a bio article. AIRcorn (talk) 17:21, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Modified - According to the sources cited on the Wikipedia page, Ryder "mused" about the wedding scene. So, this paragraph could be modified to "Ryder speculated that she was married to Keanu Reeves," or "Ryder quipped that she was married to Keanu Reeves," etc. Also, according to the same cited sources, Francis Ford Coppola stated that Ryder and Reeves were married "in a sense." It can be inferred that the wedding ceremony was authentic to the traditions of the Greek Orthodox religion, but if no paperwork (sacred and/or civil) was completed, then the marriage cannot be considered legally-binding. This part of the paragraph could be modified to "the wedding ceremony was conducted in a genuine manner. However, it is not clear whether the wedding was legally-binding," etc. Msoul13 (talk) 15:18, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Comment - I don't think Coppola can be considered an expert on the legality of marriages in Romania or the authenticity of anything in the Greek Orthodox Church. Just like Ryder, his comments are speculative. It makes for good sensationalistic news, but that's not appropriate for an encyclopedia that requires reliable sources. We can quote or closely paraphrase their comments, but we can't conclude that anything was done "in genuine manner." If any part of this issue remains in the article, it should be minimal, per WP:UNDUE. 173.209.178.244 (talk) 21:27, 17 September 2018 (UTC) (Full disclosure: I am the same as 75.182.115.183, editing from a different IP.)
Comment - Taking the above comment into consideration, the statements regarding Coppola could be modified as follows: "Director Francis Ford Coppola remarked that the ceremony was 'pretty authentic,' adding that Ryder and Reeves were married 'in a sense' because a priest led the ceremony. However, it is not clear from Coppola’s remarks whether the wedding was legally-binding." Msoul13 (talk) 16:20, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Just to clarify, my suggestion above about modification of the paragraph is not an endorsement of the idea of modification. I am opposed to leaving anything about this issue in the article. I also agree with Aircorn above that it might be an interesting fact for the film article, but not the bio articles. 75.182.115.183 (talk) 01:14, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Remove - Summoned by bot. This is clearly WP:UNDUE and speculation. Meatsgains(talk) 23:48, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Remoove and don't add until it is more than mere speculation. Anatoliatheo (talk) 10:02, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Remove (Summoned by bot) Very much WP:UNDUE in a biographical article. Layzner (Talk) 10:08, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Modified (Summoned by bot) I don't see the problem but it needs to be made clearer that this was a movie wedding. Coretheapple (talk) 17:32, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Modified: If rumor, simply state such and sources. If too far-fetched even to cite as rumor, remove. The issue seems to lie in sources: treat them appropriately.Aboudaqn (talk) 14:35, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Remove (Summoned by bot) BLP vio. Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:37, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Remove Listed sources say only "might be married". This is insufficient to state in wikivoice they are married. As for modifying, speculation whether someone might have married someone or not seems unencyclopedic to me. But if more sources discuss it and state as fact then re-add it. (Summoned by bot) Hrodvarsson (talk) 23:17, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
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

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) 14:06, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Have a look

2016 Stranger Things Best Actress in a Drama Nominated 2.55.46.244 (talk) 03:26, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Ex-boyfriends in infobox

@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)

@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)
@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)
@Abbyjjjj96: Do not remove Pirner; that will violate consensus. Sundayclose (talk) 21:02, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
@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)
@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)

RfC on ex-boyfriends in infobox

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)

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)

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
@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)
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)
@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)
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)
@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)
  • 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)
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)
  • 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)
    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)
  • 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)
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)
I agree with that. @ReconditeRodent and Abbyjjjj96:, thoughts? Schazjmd (talk) 00:16, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
    • 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)
      • 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)
  • 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)
  • Exclude unless sources so describe, per Hipocrite. Pincrete (talk) 04:49, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
  • 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).
  • 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)
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).
@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)
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)
  • 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)
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Winona_Ryder/Archive_2&oldid=1226738144"