65.28.241.239 (talk) No edit summary |
Wildhartlivie (talk | contribs) |
||
(3 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
Line 315: | Line 315: | ||
:I've removed [[:Category:Scottish-Americans]] and also [[:Category:Americans of Scottish descent]]. You're right. They are unverifiable as of now. --[[User:PeaceNT|PeaceNT]] ([[User talk:PeaceNT|talk]]) 07:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC) |
:I've removed [[:Category:Scottish-Americans]] and also [[:Category:Americans of Scottish descent]]. You're right. They are unverifiable as of now. --[[User:PeaceNT|PeaceNT]] ([[User talk:PeaceNT|talk]]) 07:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC) |
||
== Lead == |
|||
:''established herself as one of Hollywood's top actresses in recent years'' |
|||
Wikipedia articles should generally avoid POV and time-sensitive statements, especially in the lead section. Is this statement necessary? It would be more encyclopedic to just state, "Reese Witherspoon, is an American actress and film producer." [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 10:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::[[WP:SOFIXIT|Do what is needed]]. [[User:Darrenhusted|Darrenhusted]] ([[User talk:Darrenhusted|talk]]) 12:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::Point mooted. Article changed per suggestion. --[[User:Yachtsman1|Yachtsman1]] ([[User talk:Yachtsman1|talk]]) 16:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC) |
|||
Actually, a lead should reflect the content of the article and that Witherspoon became one of the top actresses is supported by content of the article, which is noted in a hidden note in the article. The refernce to having "established herself as one of Hollywood's top actresses" is not POV, it is sourced. The only thing that really needs to be edited is the "in recent years". [[User:Wildhartlivie|Wildhartlivie]] ([[User talk:Wildhartlivie|talk]]) 04:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 04:41, 3 July 2009
Reese Witherspoon is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 22, 2008. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
== highest paid actress== she is AMAZINGG!!!
they are many places saying she it the highest paid actress STOP!!! deleting it i've put up lots of links so its fine nicole Kidman and julia roberts have it up there when the ws named higest paid actress but frobes so why can't reese its unfair Veggiegirl (talk) 04:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Au naturel image
Get rid of the nude picture I agree. Also, there are lots of things wrong with this page. She isn't a natural brunette but ash blonde. She also spells Jean "Jeanne" and overall this article isn't written very well. Expect some changes to be made in the future!
I'm reverting this page one more time to remove the external link to the nude photograph of Reese Witherspoon. I accept that you're trying to enhance the article, but I feel your methods are inappropriate.
I'm doing this because Wikipedia is intended to be an encyclopedia, and the photograph you are linking to is not appropriate material for an encyclopedia. In addition, you are failing to provide a description of what you're linking to, which (in this case) could result in someone being exposed without warning to something they find offensive. (See Describe external links for how and some reasons why to do this).
If you feel that the image you're trying to link to is appropriate, I would very much like to discuss why.
Kenwarren 20:23, Jul 14, 2004 (UTC)
It is a picture of Reese in her natural beauty and the human body is beautiful and it should not be cover. Let celebrate the beauty of creation. There is no shame in nudity. Please add a warning to the picture if you feel it needs it but I think we should celebrate the human form all people. Only by people seeing more nudity will society realize that there is nothing wrong with the body. We should eduacate people to the wonders of the human form. I believe this world would so much a more peaceful place if we all were nude. No offensive if you are from USA but one reason why I believe the USA is so violent and hostile is because of its uptight view of nudity
- No offense taken. I don't think you're trying to vandalize the page, I really think you want to enhance it and think this is a good way to do so.
- I have no objection to the human form. I'm a photographer, and I've done a great deal of fine art figure work. However, I don't feel that the photograph is appropriate for Wikipedia, even as a link. It doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. There is a place for that sort of thing: a calendar, a "coffee table book" filled with photographs of stars au naturel, a movie (where I believe this image came from). But not here.
- BTW, the discussion of why the US is so uptight and hostile is an interesting one, and I don't disagree with you on our Puritan morals having something to do with it. But I don't think it's relevant here.
Kenwarren 01:31, Jul 15, 2004 (UTC)
I agree with everything said above. I would like to add that what we're trying to edit here is encyclopedia. An encyclopeida can be many things (Wikipedia is nicely stretching the defenition, in a good way), but there are certain things it will never be. It will never become a photo album (e.g., when you go to the George Bush article, you don't expect to see hundreds of photos of George Bush with different poses and clothes), What about the John Kerry page not quite hundred photos but probably more than enough and it will never become a Yahoo-like link collection to everything remotely related to the article; External links surve a purpose of directing the reader to external sites of extreme relevance (e.g., the homepage of the entity described in the article) or comprehensive sites that at the moment contain more information than the existing article. Your link, besides being offensive to the "uptight" people as you call them (and why do we want offensive links??), is inappropriate on the two criteria I mentioned. It merely adds another photo of the article's subject in another pose, and it does not point to the person's homepage or even to an extensive website about this person.
If you're still not convinced this link is inappropriate, here are two more things for you to think about: 1) How can we be sure this photo is authentic? If it's a "doctored" image (e.g, Reese's head with some nude model's body), you'll have to agree it's even more irrelevant. 2) Would you also expect the George Bush article to have a nude photo of him? And the Pope's article? If not, what makes Reese Witherspoon different? Is it her being female?
Nyh 16:58, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
put pix of naked men too if you got them why does everyone assuem that there is as something sexual about nudity or even worse pornographic is it sexual for you when you are showering or putting on clothes is it pornoraphic for you when you take your clothes off at the doctor's office?
- Why are we even arguing this? Including pornography, or naked pictures, in an article such as this is ridiculous. I somehow doubt there is anyone here who is going to disagree, apart from our mysterious anon. It's simply a matter to revert on sight, and IMHO, ban as vandalism if he doesn't quit it. Ambivalenthysteria 02:18, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Gay Icon Project
In my effort to merge the now-deleted list from the article Gay icon to the Gay icons category, I have added this page to the category. I engaged in this effort as a "human script", adding everyone from the list to the category, bypassing the fact-checking stage. That is what I am relying on you to do. Please check the article Gay icon and make a judgment as to whether this person or group fits the category. By distributing this task from the regular editors of one article to the regular editors of several articles, I believe that the task of fact-checking this information can be expedited. Thank you very much. Philwelch 22:21, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Another picture
For future reference, here's another picture. I don't think this page needs more than 2 pictures, (it's the only picture for Interview Magazine right now) but it might be useful later. [[:Image:Dec_2005_Cover_Interview_Magazine.gif|right|thumb|Reese Witherspoon was among the interview subjects in Interview's December 2005 issue]]
Cat:Sex symbols
Do we have a WP:Citeation for this? Yeah yeah, I know "it's obvious". But someone thought Connie Chung was obvious, too. So, if we have a link per Wikipedia:Reliable source that names her as a sex symbol, we've satisfied WP:V. - brenneman(t)(c) 21:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
WHISTLE REGISTER?????
UMMM Y IS SHE ON THE WHISTLE REGISTER PAGE IS SHE A SINGER???.... NO She can probably screech in the register but she cannot control it...she doesnt belong here.
- What do you mean she can't control it? In her movie with Mark Ruffalo, she ustains an open vowel up high as she "falls" out the window Antares33712 13:36, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
- I have no idea what the "Whistle Register Page" is, but Witherspoon did her own singing in the film Walk the Line. -- MisterHand 19:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
- The whistle register is a very hard, high range of notes. Starting from E6+. Singers like Shanice, Minnie Riperton, Mariah Carey, Rachelle Ferrell, Christina Aguilera, Betty Wright, Deniece Williams, and Chante Moore sing that high frequently. I never knew she sang but if she did, I'm not very sure if she sang high enough which not even 1st Sopranos have to sing that high. 67.181.94.96 02:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
- She's notable in the category, because she can sing (thanks to the reviews in Walk the Line and secondly, she is just as notable as Raven Symone is (she never sings that high, but always squeakly speaks that high on her show) Antares33712 13:36, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
- Please refer to the whistle register article about specific details. While Witherspoon indeed can sing, there is no proof that she do so in the whistle register. If there is, then kindly provide it both here and in the article, pointing out exactly which notes above E6 she hits and the recording they can be found on. For now though, I'm deleting her categorization as a whistle register singer. --C-squared 06:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
- I for one and tired of everyone taking out the whistle register category. In Just Like Heaven, Reese sustain a crystalline high note on an open vowel (no need for someone else to say it on another page, just LISTEN. If she did the EXACT same thing in some fluff pop song, no one would complain. Half of pop is fake, but we hate on her. 152.163.100.70 05:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- A high note is NOT the same as whistle register! If she's articulating a vowel then it's not a whistle!
- Minnie Riperton could article vowels (even enunciate words) well above Soprano C so what's your point? Must we always use some scientific gadget to "prove" a high note. 152.163.100.70 01:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Reese Witherspoon is an actress who has no verifiable proof of whistle-singing ability. Please consider permanently removing this claim unless it can be backed up with a citation of multiple songs/recordings in which she demonstrates this ability. Thanks.
- Agreed. I'm removing it as an inaccurate statement. The proofs provided on the discussion page are "original research," and not sufficient to maintain the designation. --Marysunshine 16:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Naturally Blonde???
"Like Marilyn Monroe, she is not a natural blonde but a brunette."[1]
The information above was removed from a previous version of the article (the revision dated 2005-09-05) by an user who claims she is "ash blonde" (see above, on this discussion page).
But Reese Witherspoon has dyed her hair for so long (and changed its color so many times) that she herself admits to be confused about her true hair color.[2]
How many hues do you see here already in her child pictures? But the earliest pictures here lends support that she was originally a brunette. (What is the likelihood that the mother of a 6-year-old natural ash blonde would dye her daughter's hair brown, anyway?) --68.126.197.24 08:55, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Reese has stated in various interviews that she is a natural blonde. She was questioned about her natural hair color on the Ellen DeGeneres Show in 2004 and she stated, "I'm naturally blonde. I dyed my hair brown to do this movie that I'm just finishing up- Walk the Line which is the Johnny Cash movie and I'm playing his wife, June Carter Cash."
Current Event
Why is this here? Arniep 20:54, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Why does this page get delted all the time
http://reesewitherspoonvideos.blogspot.com/ I keep trying to add this web and it's get deleted who keeps doing this an why. If so .
Inaccuracies
Forgive me, I'm new, so hopefully I'm handling this appropriately. I noticed 2 pretty glaring inaccuracies in this article. Witherspoon's first film is said to have been a made-for-TV project called "Hot Stuff" and was apparently directed by Elvis Presly... more than 15 years after he died. The project in question was actually directed by Diane Keaton and was aired under the name Wildflower. It was based on a book by Sara Flanagan called "Alice" and "Hot Stuff" was never even a working title for the project. We're also saying Witherspoon sued Star magazine in 1902 (it was in 2006). Juanitoelgato 06:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
further, If miss witherspoon was born in 1976, she would not have been 7 in 1991. So was she fifteen when cast for Man in the Moon or is the date of that production wrong or is her birthdate incorrect? and is it actually true that she "began her career in local bikini shoots" before age seven?? i've noticed someone changed her first name from kaitlin to laura to match the quick fact box/photo caption on the page. just thought i'd double check - is it Laura or Kaitlin?Thesundaygap 17:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Good catches - according to the legal documents filed for both her divorce and the Star lawsuit her legal name is Laura Jeanne Reese Witherspoon, not Kaitlin. Her birthdate and the production dates for Man on the Moon are correct, she was 15 when she landed that role not 7. I made the change to the article. Juanitoelgato 05:58, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
deface?
Reese's husband is not Ryan Seacrest. And the bit about her being an ABUSIVE (caps) mother and employing whips all seem to have been some type of malicious editing?
- LOL That's definitely slander but that's still funny. Just try to picture Reese Witherspoon whipping someone and you'll see what I mean. LOL Sion 11:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
South Carolina Move
Her publicist denied Reese moving to South Carolina. I am removing it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.98.210.129 (talk) 18:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC).
Seperate Divorce Section
There is already a section for Ms. Witherspoon's personal life, which is where the divorce between her & her ex-husband would be filed. I am combining the two sections. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.98.210.129 (talk) 21:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC).
Highest Paid Actress?
From what I hear, Nicole Kidman has been listed as Hollywood's highest paid actress, commanding $17 million a movie, while Reese is second. See the article here: http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory?id=2688827 -Lulu288 22:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
no nicole was like Julia Robert once was but resse is currently the highest payed actress [3] at the moment was she gets the most out of any other female actress —Preceding unsigned comment added by Veggiegirl (talk • contribs) 16:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Date of Birth
What did I tell you, Reese Witherspoon was born March 22, 1974. No you are guessing young, she is 33 today, so she was born on March 22, 1974. If you change this agian, you will be sorry, and I will teach you a stupid lesson. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.92.33.166 (talk • contribs)
Reese rumor: old news
Since both Reese and Jake repedatly said they arent's dating, I deleted the article about that.
Sexy hairstyles
Reese Witherspoon is one of the actresses known for her sexy hairstyles. Where would I put something like that in? I have second and third party sources. MVillani1985 (talk) 09:59, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- Hi, could you share the sources here? Best, PeaceNT (talk) 15:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Song performer
Why does it say 'song performer' in the notes of her filmography for Just Like Heaven? She didn't perform any songs in the film. Maybe whoever added that was thinking of the intro song - a cover of The Cure's Just Like Heaven, which was sung by Katie Melua? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.100.154 (talk) 15:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
- Hey, check out http://www.variety.com/profiles/people/main/30620/Reese%20Witherspoon.html?dataSet=1 and http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/contributor/1800018812/filmography. :) PeaceNT (talk) 16:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
- Jesus, you get credited as a song performer for singing 2 lines from a broadway song during a conversation?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.100.154 (talk) 16:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
- Just like they get credited for a cameo appearance as well. PeaceNT (talk) 16:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
GA nomination on hold
Please leave a note on my talk page when you're done with this stuff - cheers, — Dihydrogen Monoxide 22:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- In the infobox, the occupations (actress, producer) could/should be wlinked
- "Laura Jeanne Reese Witherspoon[1] (born 22 March 1976) is an Academy Award-winning American actress." - A few things. 1) The ref isn't really necessary - we'll trust you on the name. 2) This sentence is also a paragraph in itself - it should really be expanded. 3)As there are no other refs used in the lead it looks odd to have one here (again, remove it)
- "Witherspoon is divorced from actor Ryan Phillippe, whom she married in 1999. They have two children, Ava and Deacon." - Another standalone sentence/paragraph - nothing else about her non-movie life worth mentioning in the lead?
- The refs could really do with some work - most notably the author= and date= parameters on {{cite web}}. At the moment they're OK and you can get through GA with them, but you want them to be as good as possible, because it's articles like this one that have FA potential (that's right PeaceNT, you can have an FA!). So yeah, remember at one stage to add authors and dates to the refs.
- Again, this isn't that huge at thing at this stage, but something that would be nice would be more use of the comma (,) instead of the full stop (.) (I'm saying this after reading para 2 of the Early life and education section). Merging a few of the sentences would help the article flow better and read easier.
- "...in the CBS mini series "Return to Lonesome Dove"..." - Shouldn't the title be in italics here?
- "for which her won the Young Artist Award Best Youth Actress co-starring" - Remove the "for", and try to make it a bit clearer what the name of the award was (use quotation marks etc.) as opposed to who presented it to here (YAA, right?)
- "with Mick LaSalle commented" - change "commented" to "commeting"
- Can you get an en translated version for ref 22 (run it through google translate/babelfish)? I'm not sure on policy in these areas though, but I think it'd be reasonable....
- If Variety (magazine) is the publisher of a ref, you shouldn't include the (magazine) - just pipe the link so it reads "Variety". Same deal with NOW (magazine) --> “NOW”
- "The next year, Witherspoon provided the voice of Serena in the animated film The Trumpet of the Swan, produced by Crest Animation Productions." - Title of film should be in italics
- The early action section ends with discusssion of her difficulty in findig work, and the "Commercial and critical success” section starts with her in Legally Blonde. Is there any note of what changed - how she suddenly landed such a big job?
- ”Witherspoon's performance earned her praise from the critics, as the press began referring to her as "the new Meg Ryan".[33]. Roger Ebert commented, "Witherspoon effortlessly animated this material with sunshine and quick wit"[34] and Salon.com noted that "she [Witherspoon] delineates Elle's character beautifully." [35]” - A few things :) 1) There shouldn’t be a full stop after ref 33. 2) There should be some sort of punctuation (comma etc.) under ref 34. 3) There shouldn’t be a space between the end of the quote and ref 35.
- ”almost single-handedly." [36] As a result...” - Again, remove space between end of quote and ref. Same a bit later on at “she is its only attraction." [44]” and “about the first movie." [46]”
- Ref 37 - About.com isn’t the most reliable source =/
- ”helped the movie attract large audience.[42] [43]” - “audience” should be plural, and there shouldn’t be a space between the two refs
- Ref 46 needs a publisher
- ”and went on to grossed 90 million internationally.” - gross is singluar here - no ed on the end
- ”adapted from the 19th century classic novel Vanity Fair” - titles of novels are in italics I think
- ”it gave me much more to play with." she said.[50] [51]” - Remove space between refs
- Refs 53 and 54 need publishers
- ”I'd never sung professionally." [58]” - Space between ref and end of quote
- Ref 59 contains a typo by the look of it
- ”In 2006, Witherspoon was among a group of actresses” - 2006 shouldn’t be wlinked here
- ”In 2007, Reese Witherspoon made...” - 2007 shouldn’t be wlinked, and “Reese” is not necessary
- ”in the world by Time magazine [78]” - Need a full stop (.), and remember not to have a space between it and the ref
- Refs 8 and 84 are the same
- Ref 87 needs accessdate
- ”"I think you're my birthday present."[88] [89]The pair got” - Fix spacing here
- ”as a reason.[100][101]In her petition” - Fix spacing
- ”In September 2007, Witherspoon spoke openly about the separation for the first time when she told Elle magazine that it was "a difficult and frightening experience for her." [107]” - Did she actually say that quote (including the “for her”)? Also fix spacing of ref and punctuation
- Ref 117 needs publisher
Reviewed version: [4]
Good luck, — Dihydrogen Monoxide 22:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- That was really detailed. Thank you! :) I've made some improvements, hope I didn't miss anything. Haven't got round to completing the cite web templates with author and date yet, it would take quite some time. While FA is an appealing idea, the thought of an FAC is just scary, not really my aim at the moment. PeaceNT (talk) 15:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Passed. I seriously thing if you go for it, you'd have a good chance at FAC. And I know how much you want an FA :) — Dihydrogen Monoxide 08:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you. I'll do some more work and will ask for your evaluation again about the article's chance at an FAC, when the time comes. PeaceNT (talk) 06:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Passed. I seriously thing if you go for it, you'd have a good chance at FAC. And I know how much you want an FA :) — Dihydrogen Monoxide 08:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Addendum - I just wrapped up a rather massive copyedit effort, after being invited to do so as an "uninvolved copyeditor" by PeaceNT. Most of my work consisted of adding helpful wiki-links, and perhaps some relatively minor rephrasing and wordsmithing of (what seemed to me) rough and/or reduntant patches. I also added some subsections to "break up" some rather lengthy monotonous sections. My hope is that this has significantly improved the "flow" and "professional feel" of the article; or at the very least has not significantly harmed the GA / FAC efforts. I know the history log shows a whole lot of edits by me (thank god nobody interrupted for most of the 9-odd hours it took to wade through it all). It does seem to me that the article may contain a little, forgive me for the lack of a better word, "fancruft" and excessive details - for example, her film character descriptions, plot summaries, editorial critical reviews, etc. I tried to tone things down a little but decided up front not to get too carried away with slicing away at sections and details that others obviously went to great effort to put together. If there is a consensus that there is a need to trim away some of the details, then I would go along with that. Otherwise I'll leave it alone and see how the GA / FA goes. Again - my hope is that perhaps my multitude of minor changes will help push it on. If not - please feel free to revert it all to restore it to the "pre-T-dot" mods by PeaceNT; I promise not take it very personally. --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 00:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you. The edits were great. The sections looked rather short so I generalized the headers a bit. :)
- Concerning the "fancruft", well, back in November I was quite satisfied with this simple version, in which the career section was basically a full report of her filmography. I was actually thinking about GAC when I looked at an FA (Angelina Jolie) and noticed said article did not only list her work with sentences like "that year she appeared in that film as ms.someone; then the next year ..." but also gave information on what the critics wrote about the her performances in each film and other commercial values of her movies. I've been following this kind of standard, with Angelina Jolie and Cilian Murphy serving as the main models.
- I think the reviews shouldn't be a problem if they come from reputable sources. The plot descriptions are correspondingly necessary because the reviews of movies and actors only make sense when they are mentioned along with the movies' storylines and the like (i.e in-universe materials). Otherwise the readers would have to click on individual articles to see what the movies are about or what her characters are like, et cetera. Just trying to make sure the article in itself is comprehensive to everyone.
- Anyway, something is definitely superfluous, since you as a reader think there're excessive details. Perhaps I'll trim down some text, as soon as my internet connection recovers its expected speed... PeaceNT (talk) 19:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- Nahhh - don't bother. I did not go to the trouble of benchmarking the Witherspoon article against other notable, good, or featured articles on other Hollywood actors & actresses; as I don't typically study or work in that genre (with perhaps the notable exception of a very few HP-related BLP's, which are sometimes subject to random vandalism and vanity posts when the kids get bored). Anyway therefore my casual view on what constitutes a "good article" in this genre may not be particularly well grounded or especially valid. I would suggest we first let those that spend significant time working generally in Wikiprojects and Categories related to the Biographies of Actors and Actresses (etc.) decide by consensus what constitutes a well-written article, develop a benchmark standard, and then work towards bringing all such articles in the genre into conformation with that standard. What may seem like trivial fluff to "me" might be of critical importance to someone else, and I for one do not wish to deny that person the information they need. So again, let the involved consensus (and policies, guidelines and MOS) decide how much information is "just right" for this genre. This is why I recommended doing nothing unless there is a consensus to trim. Personally I would rather focus on whether the tone, tense, orderly flow, grammar, and spellings are correct, the "facts" and references are verifiable, the cross references and internal and external links are useful for further study and that sort of thing. More "housekeeping" than "content-creating" (or "dismissing" as it were). Thanks. --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 21:22, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Is this a typo?
"That same year, she made her TV acting debut by appearing in the cabal movie Wildflower"
Cabal movie? Is that some sort of conspiracy?
24.178.78.192 (talk) 15:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- I assume it means "cable". It must refer to this: http://imdb.com/title/tt0103266/ thx1138 (talk) 09:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- And I see it's already been fixed in the article. thx1138 (talk) 09:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Vegetarianism (Veganism?)
We should certainly say something about Reese Witherspoon's vegetarianism (rumor is that she's vegan, so "Legally Blonde" was acted with a deep beleif in humane values and an ethics that includes animals. MaynardClark (talk) 06:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC) MaynardClark
- Thanks! Got a reference? Unfortunately a "rumor ... that she's a vegan" is really not good enough for any encyclopedia that requires verifiability from reliable sourcing, especially when it comes to biographical material of living persons. The bit about her performance in Legally Blonde being animal friendly or whatever is also nice to know, but without a reputable source (perhaps a verifiable quote from Reese herself?) it constitutes synthesis - as forbidden original research. Please feel free to boldly post what you find, but please be sure provide the proper proof (perhaps a web link to where you found it) so anyone can check and verify it. Thanks again! --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 14:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- I watched a clip on youtube of her on the Ellen DeGeneres show, and she was eating fried chicken. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.122.24 (talk) 14:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Jake -- aren't there reliable sources now?
Wonderful news on the FA for this article. But more to the point, I just wonder how long we are going to see photos of Reese and Jake everywhere together before their relationship can be added to this article rather than denied by it. At this moment, it is included in the Jake Gyllenhaal article with multiple sources. Take a look. --Melty girl (talk) 20:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh, there certainly are- and I assure you, I have added the exact same reliable sources to Reese's article as I have to Jake's; in fact, the paragraph on the relationship in his article now originated in this article. On numerous occasions, I have also added details to the article on the relationship and the manner in which it was reported in the media. However, such additions are repeatedly removed from this article by people apparently frightened of jeopardizing FA status. Therefore, I give up, and they can add them whenever they deign to, if they remember all the details of the past year by then. Starswept (talk) 23:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)starswept
- I don't dispute the reliability of the news provided by these sources, but whether or not Witherspoon and Gyllenhaal are having a romantic relationship is just the media's assumption. In case they aren't, it is not necessary for us to report the information. Also, saying "after a trip to Rome and the finalization of Witherspoon's divorce from Ryan Phillippe in October 2007, Gyllenhaal and Witherspoon became more open with their relationship." somehow implies that they no longer conceal their relationship from the public because Witherspoon is now divorced. Does it seem a bit like speculation? Regards, - PeaceNT (talk) 06:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, typically a man and a woman do not kiss and cuddle in public, hold hands at the airport, give each other piggyback rides, snuggle up on trips to Napa Valley, go for frequent hikes with the woman's children, attend a Halloween party together, go trick or treating with the woman's children, work out together, drive around Los Angeles giggling together, or make out at restaurants, all of which Reese and Jake have been photographed doing, unless they are involved in a romantic relationship. Why that continues to be denied by you and others on this page is beyond me. And the sentence does not imply that they are no longer concealing the relationship because Witherspoon is divorced- it merely states the fact that public photographs of Witherspoon and Gyllenhaal as a couple did not emerge until several days after Witherspoon's divorce was finalized. Whether the divorce was the reason for this is irrelevant; the fact of the matter is that the Rome photos and all subsequent photos of the couple WERE taken and released only after the divorce (with the exception of one set of photos of them driving together on August 31, 2007). That is a matter of chronology. Starswept (talk) 03:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)starswept
Middle Class?
Should it be stated that she was born into a "middle class" family? Sure, she's got more money now, but her dad was a physician, her mother a college professor? Maybe "upper middle class"?66.72.215.225 (talk) 17:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi. :) The article says "middle-class family" because there is a reliable source confirming the info, please check http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/article737573.ece?token=null&offset=12 (published by The Times). :) Best regards, --PeaceNT (talk) 12:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
TOC
What happened to the table of contents on this discussion page? I can't see it. I don't see a "__NOTOC__" in the source code. Should we add a "__FORCETOC__" "magic word" to work around some bug?
--Jerome Potts (talk) 03:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- The WPbiography template is the problem. Removing it restores the TOC. Raul654 (talk) 04:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- Indeed it is, thank you. But you removed the "talkheader" template instead, and that didn't fix our pbm; so i put it back. If you removed it for a separate reason, go right ahead and do it again, as i'm supposing you erred. --Jerome Potts (talk) 11:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- The talkheader template is not supposed to be used on every talk page - it's for controversial pages only (and frankly, I'd like to delete the damn thing entirely). Raul654 (talk) 22:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- Indeed it is, thank you. But you removed the "talkheader" template instead, and that didn't fix our pbm; so i put it back. If you removed it for a separate reason, go right ahead and do it again, as i'm supposing you erred. --Jerome Potts (talk) 11:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
First sentence
I removed "Academy Award-winning" from the first sentence because the awards are repeated a few sentences later. See also WT:Neutral point of view/Archive 29#POV in first sentence?. You wouldn't say "Carmen Electra is a Razzie award winning actress" or "Paris Hilton is a DUI-charged celebrity". The first sentence should simply say who or what the subject is. Praise, criticism, awards etc. go after. Why is there such a need to introduce someone as "award-winning" when it's mentioned again a few sentences later? Spellcast (talk) 14:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- Recently I mentioned her Oscar win in the very first sentence but it has been removed twice. The first time it was argued that it is repeated in the second paragraph. The second time the user argued that the Oscar win "shouldn't come before the fact that she is an actress". In my opinion the second paragraph specifies her win; it tells the reader the film for which she won, among other things. I think that's not mere repetition. In the first paragraph the info serves as an introduction.
And I think that it's irrelevant whether one mentions her win first or the fact that she is an actress. You might as well say that her nationality should not be mentioned before her profession. In fact, if you take a look at other actresses (or actors) that won an Academy Award (see e. g. Diane Keaton, Sophia Loren, Julia Roberts, Shirley MacLaine, to name only a few) you will see that the Oscar is always mentioned in the first paragraph. This particular award is not an ordinary one (it's not the Razzie or anything else), it is the most coveted film award worldwide and generally, major film awards are mentioned in the first sentence (or at least in the second one). Winning the Oscar is something special since it is the most prestigious film award. Dutzi (talk) 19:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)- I first saw this "award-winning" issue at Christina Aguilera (link, link). It was discussed whether "Grammy-winning" should be in the intro. WP:LS says "The first paragraph should begin with a straightforward, declarative sentence. Readers... should immediately find the answer to 'What is it?' or 'Who is he/she?'." Winning awards is something actors have done, but it's not what defines them. Witherspoon is an actress first and foremost and she was notable long before she won an Oscar.
- See also WP:NPoV#Fairness of tone: "Even when a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinion, an article can still radiate an implied stance through either selection of which facts to present, or more subtly their organization." "Academy-winning" in the first sentence implies a positive PoV just like "Razzie-winning" implies negative connotations. It's a non sequitur to say it's ok to put it in because other articles do. It's what you find in press releases or film trailers rather than a neutral enecylopedia. An Oscar is a prestigious award and of course it should be mentioned, but to introduce subjects that way implies bias. Spellcast (talk) 05:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Image licenses
While the first two images seem ok, the third and fourth image of this article are quite clearly copyright infringements, imho. Even though both had been published under a Creative Commons license on Flickr, they both appear to have been taken by professional photographers on the red carpet, and were apparently illicitly uploaded and mislabeled on Flickr. Both are only available in small resolutions (often a clear sign of pictures simply taken from somewhere on the internet), and have already been deleted on Flckr, and I'm afraid that should also happen with them on Commons. Sloan21 (talk) 17:53, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- I've nominated both for deletion on Commons.-Wafulz (talk) 03:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Semi-protection
Can an admin please semi-protect this artcle? I am a afraid that vandalism by unregistered users always shoots up on featured article, and this article is no exception. This article is losing quality and it is because of vandalism by unregistered users, and the only way to fix this and restore the article to the way it was yesterday is to semi-protect the article. Daniel Chiswick (talk) 02:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- Per the protection policy, articles on the main page are not protected except in cases of extreme vandalism and then only for an extremely limited time. -MBK004 02:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Well I would say that it is extreme, I mean this page has been vandalized almost non-stop since yesterday. Daniel Chiswick (talk) 03:12, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- But now it is off the main page,
and the page itself hasn't been edited since it was up there.and I don't expect the vandals to be here in force now. We don't protect after the fact, and if need be we can restore the page to what it was before it went up on the main page. -MBK004 03:15, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay well I just took the liberty of restoring the article to the way it was yesterday when it was first featured, and I hope the vandalism stops. Daniel Chiswick (talk) 03:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Albert Pyun?
The following passage from the opening paragraph reads like vandalism to me, but I'll simply quote it here and explain why I have problems with it.
- growing up watching the films of Albert Pyun, her favorite filmmaker. Films like Kickboxer, Brain Smasher: A Love Story and Doll Man acknowledgely are some of the films Reese love the most in life
Here are my problems with it:
- No sources, yet the writer claims that the films listed are "acknowledgely" (sic) her favorites.
- Pyun is a maker of B-movies using third-rate actors that are typically released direct-to-video. It seems highly unlikely that Witherspoon, an A-list actress with some talent, would cite his work as her inspiration to become such an actress.
- The film titles are not in proper format, i.e., they are not italicized or linked to their relevant articles.
- "Acknowledgely" is not a word.
- "are some of the films Reese love the most" displays a rather blatant verb-object-number disagreement.
In sum, the passage sounds unlikely and begs for a source citation, and needs some copyediting if it is to be kept. 71.200.140.35 (talk) 13:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Divorce and Community Property
I edited the divorce section as relates to their division of property under California law. Phillippe wasn't entitled to half of all Witherspoon's assets, only those gained with labor during the marriage. Similarly, Witherspoon would have been entitled to half of all the assets Phillippe earned during the marriage. Simply saying "half of Witherspoon's assets" is not only simplistic, but a gross misstatement of the law. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.109.233.239 (talk) 09:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Fear
Fear was a 1996 movie, not a 1998 movie? Why does this article state otherwise? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.188.177.195 (talk) 01:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
"Scottish-Americans"
Is there any justification for listing her as such? The article itself admits that there is no evidence that she is one, so surely this should be removed pending verification? Shiresman (talk) 01:20, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
- I've removed Category:Scottish-Americans and also Category:Americans of Scottish descent. You're right. They are unverifiable as of now. --PeaceNT (talk) 07:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Lead
- established herself as one of Hollywood's top actresses in recent years
Wikipedia articles should generally avoid POV and time-sensitive statements, especially in the lead section. Is this statement necessary? It would be more encyclopedic to just state, "Reese Witherspoon, is an American actress and film producer." Viriditas (talk) 10:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
- Do what is needed. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
- Point mooted. Article changed per suggestion. --Yachtsman1 (talk) 16:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
- Do what is needed. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Actually, a lead should reflect the content of the article and that Witherspoon became one of the top actresses is supported by content of the article, which is noted in a hidden note in the article. The refernce to having "established herself as one of Hollywood's top actresses" is not POV, it is sourced. The only thing that really needs to be edited is the "in recent years". Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)