Talk:Winona Ryder/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Old comments

Sorry about replacing your links with IMDB ones - when I tried them yesterday they didn't work 83.104.185.49 10:06, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

first name

How do you pronounce her first name? I can't find this information anywhere. Is it [Wee]-[no]-[nah], [Wye]-[no]-[nah]? --rydel 12:04, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It's commonly pronounced "wih-NO-nah" or "wye-NO-nah"; I've never heard "wee-". (The syllable breaks may be off because English uses a truly bizarre system for that which I can't bear to master, so read "wi-NON-ah" if you like that better.) The short "i" would be more correct going by the Dakotan origin of the name, but personal names only care about what their bearers say, anyway. Maybe you should ask a resident of Winona; I'd guess it sounds the same. :-) 82.92.119.11 12:41, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm a former resident of Winona, Minnesota, which locals pronounce something like "wih-NO-nah" (the first vowel is an unstressed schwa). Pronouncing the first syllable as "why" is taken as a clear marker that the speaker is not native to Winona. As Ryder was not a native Winonan, (I searched the official county birth records myself and can tell you she's not there under any name), this doesn't really tell you how to pronounce her name. Jonathunder 18:30, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

It's definitely wih-NO-nah. I know because I went to school with her, but she actually normally went by the nickname Noni.--68.79.0.21 12:27, 18 May 2006 (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 21:56, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Why do you do this Philwelch? Every time I read a biography on anyone, there you are, asking if the public thinks they are a "Gay icon". As for your comment "That is what I am relying on you to do.", I have better things to do than decide if every actor/actress is a gay icon. Why are you relying on readers to decide if someone is a gay icon? Can't you figure that out yourself?--67.32.211.223 (talk) 18:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

"WASB"??

I've never heard the term ever in my life. Did someone just make it up? Even the Urban Dictionary has no entry for this.--Bash 18:58, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

I changed this to English. -Acjelen 19:39, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Ellis Island

I'd also like to see some evidence for the Ellis Island story. -Acjelen 02:22, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

This article appeared in The Hollywood Reporter, 5 March 1997 [1]. I've seen a JPEG of it but not the original. Conch Shell 08:57, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

The Ellis Island name change story is a common myth. See http://uscis.gov/graphics/aboutus/history/articles/NameEssay.html or http://www.ancestry.com/learn/library/article.aspx?article=3893. Questors 17:56, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

It may be a myth in most cases but Ryder has stated that it is true in this particular one. Bear in mind that her ancestors spoke no English and any identification that they were carrying would have been written in the Cyrillic alphabet. Conch Shell 12:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think the purpose of Wikipedia is to just repeat what people say about themselves if it is not true. Clerks employed at Ellis Island could read and speak the languages of the immigrants, most being immigrants themselves. They also did not pass out slips of paper that told the immigrants their new names, which were meekly accepted and used. Nobody got new names at Ellis Island unless they changed them themselves after they had gone through the admission process. Mind you, I am not saying the name was not changed; I am saying it was not changed by the authorities at Ellis Island. Ryder's ancestors arrived at Ellis Island on Jul 03, 1906 on The Kroonland with the last name of Tomschin. (You can find the record at ellisisland.org. Like all passenger lists, it is not written in the Cyrillic alphabet.). In 1920, the family is listed in the census for Manhattan Assembly District 6, New York, New York, ED 492, page 19A as Horowitz. Questors 22:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into this, I don't think Wikipedia should be used to spread urban myths either. However I suspect Winona's claims are true as any ID the Tomchins would have been carrying would have been in the cyrillic alphabet. It's possible the clerks could have spoke Russian though I don't know how likely. Also, according to your link, immigrants tended to anglicize their names. The Tomchins seem to have chosen a completely different Russian one! On balance I think its best to reinstate Winona's claims but make it clear that they are that. Conch Shell 09:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

PS - you seem to have traced Winona's family tree back to 1906. It would be a great contribution to the article. Conch Shell 12:31, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is the place for that. Rootsweb and various other sites have celebrity genealogies if you are interested. Questors 19:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Ellis Island went out of their way to employ people (often recent immigrants) who spoke the languages the new arrivals were speaking. They lined up at the windows according to language. But the bigger point is that they did not hand out names at Ellis Island! That would be like me going to the post office to mail a letter and coming home and telling my family we got a new name. There is just no connection between Ellis Island and new names. I suggest a visit to Ellis Island where you will see how organized it all was, how they catered to the new immigrants, and how the immigrants entered into a community after they arrived. Questors 19:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd have thought Ellis Island officials would have at least given out papers to say that immigrants had legally entered the country and that the names on these would have formed the basis of their legal ID. Conch Shell 14:51, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

My grandfather claimed throughout his subsequent life (and it was supported by other relatives) that his given name had been changed from "Ladislav" to "Laddie" when he immigrated at the age of seven, in the standard Ellis Island language-impaired-official legend scenario. As for Ryder, it may not be verifiable to say "Her family's name WAS changed at Ellis Island", but a verifiable statement might be, "She said that her family's name was changed at Ellis Island, in this interview (reference)." 129.97.79.144 21:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Girl Interrupted Edit

I just changed the text of the description of Ryder's film "girl Interrupted". In which Angelina Jolie plays not a "psychopath" as it originally states, but rather a "sociopath". Here is my citation:

Plot Summary Spoiler warning: Plot or ending details follow. During her stay, Susanna (Ryder) meets Lisa (Jolie). Lisa proves to be a sexually driven and volatile character. Susanna and Lisa form a tight bond, but later Lisa begins to spin out of control and becomes a traitor to Susanna. Lisa ends up in a bed in restraints, repentant for what she did to Susanna. Susanna also befriends Daisy (Murphy), whose home problems lead to her suicide. Lisa, however, is not so sympathetic to Daisy's problems and never really shows a desire to be friends with her. This is a reflection of Lisa's sociopathy.

[edit] Quote "Lisa thinks she's hot shit cuz she's a sociopath" "We are very rare and we are mostly men" [edit] Related topics

http://psychcentral.com/psypsych/Girl,_Interrupted Lindsey 17:18, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

And God Created Noni

It is acceptable to link to certain fan sites, RE:

Fan sites: On articles about topics with many fansites, including a link to one major fansite is appropriate, marking the link as such."

AGCN provides comprehensive information on Winona Ryder's past and present activities, it's also got the largest WR image collection on the web. It was on this page when I first started editing Wikipedia about a year ago and was only recently removed.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Conch Shell (talk) 17:05, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Ryder's mother

Someone just corrected her mother's maiden name to "Istas", no doubt from her birth certificate at Rootsweb.com. This is the name I saw there before, too. I think Palmer was her first husband's surname. Anyway, do we really know if her mother is of English descent? "Istas" certainly doesn't sound English and all I've read about Ryder's ancestry is that her father is Jewish (and most articles seemed to imply that her mother isn't), so I'm removing "English descent" unless someone has a good source. Vulturell 01:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Redirect for misspelling

It seems to me that many people try to spell her name as "Winona Rider". Would it be helpful to have some kind of redirect so that if people are looking for her by that spelling, it would direct them to the appropriate page? I'm technically incompetent and have no idea how I would go about doing this. Mrplastic 06:59, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Done. Conch Shell 11:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Blonde hair

Would someone want to correct the section where it says Ryder's natural blonde hair can be admired in the film Edward Scissorhands? It was extensively mentioned by the actress herself at the time she promoted the movie that she wore a wig! I can provide a cite if needed. 151.205.51.198 23:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)a Winona fan

Done. Conch Shell 10:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The article states that she had been dying her hair black since childhood, but later says she began dying it after her agent told her to. I've always heard the latter... This should be corrected if somebody can confirm one or the other.

by Wild Mountain Thyme 03:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Her natural hair color is black. I went to school with her. When I first met her she actually had it dyed bright beet red! --68.72.97.144 (talk) 18:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a third-party reliable source for that? Ward3001 (talk) 20:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Tidied Up

Hope no one minds, I just tidied up some of the film summaries and the phrasing, particularly 1986-2000. Cheers, a big Winona fan. -Wikitoddia 23:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Best Director

Does she really consider Frances Ford Coppola the "Best Director"? And is that the best director ever, the best director currently alive, or is this even appropriate? It seems for a compliment that generous, there should be some documentation. Anyone? -Wikitoddia 00:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)00:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Scorsese, yes. I've added a source. Cheers. Igorrr 08:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Page Hamilton relationship and Winona Ryder impersonators

Where'd you read they dated for three years? The never "officialy" dated, but according to paparazzis (isn't an encyclopedic source to begin with) they only went out for a few weeks or months. Article is protected, could someone be so nice and remove the wrong edit. Thx.

Fixed. Ru4real 08:46, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Their relationship is documented and official. Page Hamilton has mentioned it in interviews. Do not edit my entries without talkback here or at contact christianlloydburrows at yahoo dot com. Wikideditor 08:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes it was documented, but they only dated for a while, definitely not three years as you have them. Hamilton was therefore just another of Ryder's flings, not notable enough to be added to this article. Ru4real 17:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I asked politely to contact and talk before you vandalized Ryder's profile and called her last relationship "another fling". I have made the decision to waste my time over this issue with you because your reasons for vandalism are suspect.

Further I include here links and quotes where Hamilton mentions the duration of his relationship with Ryder between three to three and a half years

Joe's Podhole interview http://joespodhole.libsyn.com/index.php?post_id=124496

Quote from interview with Mark Carras of RockMyMonkey.com

"I'm at that point in my life where I have a little less stress with my home life, because I'm single. I was once married, and I had a girlfriend for the last three and a half years up until May."

I have wasted my time for you looking for images of Ryder and Hamilton together. Photos of them shopping or on dates can be found dated July of 2003, October 2003, March 2004 and April 2006. Approx. time period quoted by Hamilton. Wikideditor 18:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Take a deep breath and take your medication. Hopefully those voices in your head that tell you that I'm slandering you will stop and you will be fine. Hopefully. Sorry, but Ryder's name wasn't brought up in both the cited interviews. I also haven't seen pictures of Ryder and Hamilton together for the longest time. He was more than just a fling, but three years is a stretch I think. But I won't revert your edits 'cause it's no big deal to me. Ru4real 18:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

You are slandering Ryder by belittling a three year relationship as a fling. How could you not hear Winona Ryder's name in the Podhole interview when everyone else has? I have an email sent to me that says you have been impersonating Winona Ryder on several sites because she wouldn't sleep with you. Is that why you don't want the three year Hamilton relationship on Wikipedia because you told people online another story as you acted as Winona Ryder? Is that you or someone else? If it isn't you what do you think about it as you did remove references to it in the main article by anonymous contributors? Wikideditor 16:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

She wouldn't sleep with me? I acted as Ryder? What? You are weird, you know that? I removed the edit because some weirdo with a myspace account is completely unencyclopedic and nonessential to Ryder. I wasn't the only editor who thought so as the article even got protected to prevent the anonymous contributor from adding their unencyclopedic edit. Ru4real 03:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Insulting me (again). I did say an email claimed you, RU4real, had previously impersonated Winona Ryder on the-soap.com's message boards under the pseudonym 'meforreal'. It's pretty easy to theorize that when your nicknames are similar. I will ask some questions and ask you to answer all of them.

1) Are you meforreal? 2) Why is it that you appeared for the first time on the 16 October to edit out references to a Winona Ryder impersonator on MySpace within minutes of those additions which came from a single user using multiple connections and proxies? 3)The same additions came in from other proxies on the 17 October and again you appeared very shortly after to remove them. Are you psychic? 4) Why did you blatantly and purposefully ignored Page Hamilton's references to her in the links above? 5) Why is it that with your encyclopedic knowledge of Winona Ryder you said Page Hamilton was "another quick fling" when every Ryder fan knows they were dating for three years? 6)What was the purpose for deleting my additions more than once when they were grounded in factual knowledge?

Answer all those questions without ignoring any. Wikideditor 16:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Meforreal? What? I don't claim to have encyclopedic knowledge of Ryder, I wouldn't want to. However, I do know that said edit was not essential to Ryder hence I and other editors removed it. Goodbye Ru4real 16:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

You're so quick to reply (must live here) and quicker at running away with questions unanswered! Come back and answer all questions above please. Wikideditor 17:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

the user named Ru4real is the impersonator of winona ryder as mentioned on the imdb and also on this page. Ru4real lives in tennessee and operates from ip address XX. Ru4real is a very very good liar and is very very evasive. this person is also 'meforreal' on soap. Ru4real is being watched by authorities on myspace and imdb and here to insure that there is no danger to winona.

You were the person who told us on IMdB. How did you find out? Send all your evidence to christianlloydburrows[at]yahoo.com Wikideditor 15:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

If this person http://www.myspace.com/118711933 is Winona then I'm disgusted by her personality and responses and hope never to see her face or hear her name again. It would make her an awful human being Lefttodiealone 21:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

.....and they all fell down Wikideditor 11:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Missing picture

The english and most of the international pages about wynona have no picture in the top right bio box.

The Esperanto version of the page has a nice one that could be used, but I'd like someone who understands Esperanto to check if the licence is ok. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.114.251.35 (talk) 21:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC).

It's kind of silly that someone this famous is without a picture. How about temporarily we just use the 'How to make an american quilt' DVD cover ??

Joelittlejohn 16:33, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Adding copyrighted images to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder is against Wikipedia policy. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images borrowed from other web sites, printed material, films, or other sources; such additions will be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Note that Wikipedia policy does not allow use of a non-free image on the page of a living person. Ward3001 16:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

"WRNC" site appears to be a fan blog

The "winona ryder news channel" appears to be a glorified blog. It's also not originated by Winona. Prove me wrong, but this appears to be a sketchy case of not meeting WP:EL WP:RS etc. Site contact is a hotmail address. Piperdown 03:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Complete rewrite (May 2007); possible GA or FA status

I have completly re-writen the article. I beleive it is close to receiving a GA or FA status, maybe an expansion on the personal life section. Any comments and suggestions would be very helpful. Angel2001 13:54, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Main05.jpg

Image:Main05.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 03:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Early life and education needs reference

Almost the whole Early life and education part is based on trivia from TV.com while these trivia seems to be editable by everyone and therefor aren't good sources of information. There should be better ones... Greetings, --Konsumkind 17:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

i know trivia is discouraged, but...

...i remember that the last time i visited this article there was a fairly extended list of occurences of Winona in popular culture, like a list of songs written about her, including a mention of the quarrel with Les Claypool on Primus' Wynona's big brown beaver, etc. Why was that erased? I'm not into trivia sections really (i hate random lists of uninteresting facts like "she's got a scar on her left knee" or "she used to sniff glue at age 8" — and yeah i just made that up), but i don't think that list fell into this category. I did find it useful. Are "References in popular culture" discouraged too — if they're not too long and kept clean?

Trivia by any other name is still trivia. Most of the time use of the heading "Cultural references" is an attempt to avoid the trivia tag. Occasionally I have seen a little less junk in "Cultural references", but over time all the usual junk is added. It will get a trivia tag (by me if no one else), and all unsourced trivia will get a "citation needed" tag. Most of it will eventually be deleted. Ward3001 (talk) 17:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree. But still, don't you think some of that info, such as an allusion to Primus' song, or her mock portrayal in the South Park movie, is worth being recorded in THIS article? — properly, with citations and everything? If it is not mentioned here, people who come to this article may miss relevant information. If i'm gathering data on Winona Ryder, i'd like to know things such as those two above. I know it's hard to draw the line between relevant and bullwikishit, but...

Just a line for every occurence containing a wikilink to the proper article would be enough, wouldn't it? Where else would you put it? You may claim there is an article on Primus or South Park for that, but again, people logically turning to this article for info will miss it. And starting a new article is out of the question.

When i read Wikipedia's policy on trivia sections, i understand that those facts ought to be incorporated in the article: if they're relevant enough, they won't be hard to accomodate in a biography, for instance; and the other ones may be deleted. But deleting a whole section... I don't know, you might erase important facts that someone just failed to place correctly.

Sorry for being so tenacious about it, i hate to see an article full of junk as much as the next guy, but i guess if it were my responsibility, Wikipedia would be the hugest junkyard in Internet — and that's saying a lot. I'm still willing to know your point though. :) El edgar (talk) 20:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

"those facts ought to be incorporated in the article"

You hit the nail on the head there. A trivia section is only supposed to be a temporary place until it can be incorporated into the article. So the best thing is to go ahead and incorporate it into the article in the first place. Some extreme junk I remove immediately. The stuff with more relevance I let sit for a month or two, and if there's no citation added, I delete it. I'm fine with a wikilink to another article instead of a citation to an external source, if the information is relevant and notable. The problem with letting the junk stay longer is that it tends to attract more junk. People love to add trivia, but almost no one wants to clean it up. That's why you have enormous trivia sections develop until someone finally gets tired of it and deletes the whole thing.

Regarding Primus, if you're referring their song supposedly about her, they have denied that it is about her. See the article. I don't think it's worthy of a mention that the song is not about her.

For South Park, if you are referring to the parody in the South Park movie, that's already in the article.

I'd say that if you have any doubt about whether a trivia item should go in the article (especially a trivia section), put it on the Talk page and see what other people think. Ward3001 (talk) 20:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Noni Winona Laura Tomchin Horowitz Ryder Winona, Minnesota

[[ hopiakuta Please do sign your signature on your message. ~~ Thank You. -]] 01:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Polly Klaas: Source please?

The much of the section about Polly Klass is completely unsourced. We need sources for the following:

• That the Studio attempted to remove the dedication
• That Ryder's threat forced them to relent
• The alleged quote from the Assistant DA (and Ryder's reaction)
• That Klaas's father was expelled from the courtroom while "voicing protest"

On another note, voicing protest of what? Was he angry about what the Assistant DA said about Ryder? Or was he angry about Ryder's dedication of the movie? Without a citation, we can't rephrase for clarity, and per WP:BLP, this section really shouldn't be here at all without reliable sources. UPDATE: Checked the Polly Klaas page. The same facts are asserted, again without attribution.

Wellspring (talk) 16:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

OK found sources for everything but the alleged attempt by the studio to remove the dedication. I found a website that relates the same story, but they don't qualify under WP:RS and I couldn't locate the source that they cite. So for now I've removed the following: "The producers at first wanted to remove the dedication, but Ryder said she would not do any publicity for the film if it was removed, so it was retained.".

The alleged quote was incorrect; I fixed it. Mark Klaas was there to support Ryder, but while he did not speak on her behalf at the hearing due to being "detained" no source I've found details the story as previously related in the article. Detained could mean anything from arrested to simply late and if he really was ejected from the court for defending Ryder then I'm very surprised that none of the media accounts mentioned it. So that goes too. I'm torn about whether this is part of the Klaas story or the shoplifting story.

Also added citations for everything. I read more articles than just CBS and CNN, but the NYT and Fox coverage didn't add any details and so I stuck with the most reliable sources.

Wellspring (talk) 15:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

she was on an episode of friends she played rachel's friend from college, she and rachel made out at a party in college. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.14.86.128 (talk) 06:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

We know. It is in the article, with a link to an article about the episode. Ward3001 (talk) 19:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the Woody Allen problem of insurance occurred in 2002 or 2003 after Wynona Ryder was sentenced in a publically televised sentencing in the California Superior Court in December 2002 It was because of her "drug" problem and "shoplifting" problem and the hysteria of the Press and Media and publicity for a year, only ending in December of 2002, that the insurance companies didn't want to insure anything Wynona Ryder would appear in.

I think Winona Ryder was "set up" or "on the set" ----one or the other---- and I have no desire to hurt her (I think she was hurt enough) but I think that Wikipedia is putting out incomplete information that paints an incomplete picture of what really happened to Winona Ryder in this article if you don't indicate that it was in December of 2002, after the two movies were completed in 2002, that Winona was sentenced for felony larceny and shoplifting and not until 2003 that she was finding it hard to get work and that Woody Allen had to drop her ----Obviousl;y. this hurt her career and I think she was SET UP to provide an example to the American Public that would indicate that even the rich and famous are prosecuted and punished for shoplifting which is "larceny" when prosecuted in the courts of the United States ----and to protect the California Three Strikes Laws and the State State Statutes for Civil Recovery for Shoplifting throughout the United States and especially in California, where it is really BIB business. There was never any discussion of The Civil Recovery Statutes for Shoplifting in any of the publicity about the Winona Ryder case and I guess the Press and the Media just weren't curious about why Winona was treated differently than the other 5000 similar cases that were plead down to a misdemeanor, etc.. before a public jury trial and sentencing.

CJKC

GA Review

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Comments:

1. I think that the criminal infobox is unnecessary; she already has an actress one (which she is mainly known for) and there's nothing in the infobox that couldn't be summarized in the prose of the article.
2. "Marked by controversy in its depiction of violence in teenage life, critical reaction was lukewarm,[11] but Ryder's performance was critically embraced," (Early works 1985-1990) One of the "critical"s should be changed; it's too repetitious to use the same word twice in one sentence.
3. Some statements require citations:

   "The film was a box office flop, yet achieved status as a cult film." (Early works 1985-1990)

   "For her performance, Ryder recieved a Golden Globe nomination for Best Actress in a Supporting Role." (Early works 1985-1990)

   "a project she brought to director Francis Ford Coppola's attention." (1991-1995)

   "Her surroundings reflect the interpersonal and societal conflicts raging within and around her via many scenic references and multi-layered utterances. Her role in this movie won her a Golden Globe Award for Best Supporting Actress as well as an Academy Award nomination in the same category." (1991-1995) I don't really even feel that the first sentence of this is necessary for the article.

   "Her performance received acclaim, and Reality Bites has since become earned status as a cult film." (1991-1995)

   "She also received an Best Actress Oscar nomination the following year." (1991-1995) Regarding Little Women

   "The film was not a commercial success, nor was it popular with critics." (1991-1995) Regarding How to Make an American Quilt

   "Her next role was in Looking for Richard, which became a failure commercially, although managed to draw moderate critical acclaim." (Continued success, 1996–2000)

   "The film was expected to be a success, considering its budget, but became a large failure." (Continued success, 1996–2000) Regarding 'The Crucible

   "Ryder then starred in Woody Allen's Celebrity (1998), after Drew Barrymore turned down Ryder's role, in an ensemble cast." (Continued success, 1996–2000) Need a cite that Drew Barrymore turned down the role

   "While Ryder was expected to make her comeback with her leading role, the film instead became the "welcome-to-Hollywood coronation" for Jolie,[26] who won an Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress for her performance." (Continued success, 1996–2000) The parts that need citing are the fact that she "was expected to make her comeback" and that Jolie won the Academy Award.

   "Autumn in New York received mixed review" (Continued success, 1996–2000)

   "which was a commercial failure. Thus, Ryder refused to do commercial promotion for the film." (Continued success, 1996-2000) Regarding Lost Souls

   "This was her most commercially successful movie to date, earning over $126 million in the United States alone." (Hiatus, 2001–2005) Regarding Mr. Deeds

   "The film premiered at the Sundance Film Festival on January 25, 2006." (2006-present) Regarding The Darwin Awards

   "The film debuted at the Sundance Film Festival 2007 on January 10, 2007, with a theatrical release on August 3, 2007." (2006-present) Regarding The Ten.

   "During their relationship, Depp had a tattoo placed on his arm reading "Winona Forever," which he had altered to "Wino Forever" after their separation. Ryder later had serious relationships with Soul Asylum's Dave Pirner and actor Matt Damon." (Relationships)

   "Klaas lived in the same town where Ryder grew up, Petaluma. Ryder offered a $200,000 reward for the 12 year-old kidnap victim's safe return. After Polly's death, Ryder starred in the 1994 film adaptation of Little Women by Louisa May Alcott and dedicated it to her memory. Little Women was one of Polly's favorite novels." (Polly Klaas) The fact that she started in Little Women is inherent to the film, so it doesn't need a citation, but the rest of it does.

   "Cooley filed four felony charges against her in what was described by British newspaper The Guardian as a "show-trial". (2001 Shoplifting Incident) Direct quotes require direct cites.

   "As noted by Joel Mowbray from the National Review, the prosecution was not ready to offer the actress what was given to 5000 other defendants in similar cases, an open door to a no-contest plea on misdemeanor charges." Sounds very non-neutral without a cite

4. I wonder if there's a better title for the "1996-2000" section; "continued success" doesn't really seem to accurately (or entirely) summarize what happened during this period.
5. I don't think that the direct Allen quote in the "Hiatus, 2001–2005" section in necessary; all the information contained it could be summarized and convey the exact same information
6. The second paragraph of "2006-present" is clearly out of date and needs to be re-written to conform to a more encyclopedic tone.
7. Reference #5 does not work for me
8. I question how much Youtube can be used a source, but it's almost certainly a copyright violation to do so, per WP:YOUTUBE (Refs #14 and #15)
9. The lead needs to conform to WP:LEAD. Specifically, it must not introduce any information that is not present in the body of the article (for example, there's no mention of her star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame in the article) and must adequately summarize all the major points/headings made in the body of the article (there is currently nothing on "Early life and education" or "Polly Klaas")
10. ""What's offensive to me is to trot out the body of a dead child."" (Polly Klass) Direct quotes require a direct citation, even if it's the same one used at the end of the paragraph.

Normally, all of this would outright fail the article. In this case, however, it may be possible to cite all of these facts within seven days since this is a higher-profile article. Therefore, I am going to place the article on hold provisionally. The references, including the many that still need to be added, will be checked once all of the above concerns have been addressed. Thank you for your work thus far. Cheers, CP 22:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

All of these problems have been addressed, and the citations have been provided from everything mentioned.Disco dog23 (talk) 02:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm impressed with the work done so far, it's much better now. I have updated the review accordingly; those last few things should be it before the article gets to GA status. Cheers, CP 07:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Argh! I was just about to pass this one, but I noticed that there's a valid concern on the Image:Girlinterrupted.jpg image (actually, I didn't even notice when the image popped up in the article). I suggest using a non-fair use rationale template to solve the issue, since it has a specific space for you to list what article you plan to use it in (ie. This one). An example can be found at Image:Brazil-JPryce2.jpg. Cheers, CP 19:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks like everything is good to go now, so I will be passing the article as a Good Article. Congratulations and thank you for your hard work! Cheers, CP 17:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou! Disco dog23 (talk) 08:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Category

I've added a Russian-American category to the article as she has Russian ancestors (her paternal grandparents were Jewish immigrants from Russia). See also [2] 87.126.142.54 (talk) 22:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

And if she's a Jewish-American from her grandparents then Ryder is too of Russian descent from the same grandparents. A simple fact. 87.126.142.54 (talk) 23:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that should really matter. If she was born in Russia or self-identified as an ethnic-Russian, then it would apply, but I don't believe that simply being of Russian descent warrants such a category. Categories are meant to both be informative and convey meaningful information. And from an encyclopedic perspective, I don't see any significance to her having Russian grandparents. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

agreed. If it wre her parents, that'd be enough as well, but for that level, she'd need to self-identify with her heritage... and she hasn't. ThuranX (talk) 07:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no evidence that she or her parents has ever had Russian citizenship, nor that she or her parents ever identified themselves as Russian-Americans. If we allow categories simply because of ethnic/national ancestry, then most bio articles would have many such nationalities. For example, if there were an article about me, using the "ancestry" criterion, there would be at least six nationality categories, even though my family has not lived outside of the United States in over 200 years. Ward3001 (talk) 16:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Lost Bulgari diamonds...

Why no mention in this article that Winona recently "lost" $125k-worth of borrowed Bulgari diamonds? It's newsworthy, and has been covered elsewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.56.113.162 (talk) 05:57, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Is importance or fame by association encyclopaedic?

Why is there an article about Winona Ryder’s father on this encyclopaedia - that’s what I want to know? Does this mean that if I have a daughter who becomes a famous celeb I will also become worthy of an encyclopaedic article? Moshe-paz (talk) 16:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Categories

Jayjg has removed the Russian Jewish categories from the article (and, BTW, from Laura Prepon), without any other explanation than a vague reference to WP:BLP. Whereas you are allowed to immediately remove contentiuos material (i.e. controversial material) there is nothing contentious about these categories. Furthermore Jayjg has not removed the actual information about her jewish ancestry from the article, just the categories. Categories should flow from the main text. The info is sourced through Goodall's biography. What's the problem? -Duribald (talk) 08:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

The basic problem is that Jayjg likes to make threats of using his admin tools to push his own agenda. Jayjg could just as easily have brought this issue up here, regardless of whether he removes the categories. But he chose to try to intimidate with admin tools instead of discussing. If you look at his edit and block history you'll see that this is not the first time he has POV-pushed, especially regarding "Jewish" issues. What I'd like to know for certain, Duribald, is whether it is properly sourced that her grandparents were Jewish, Russian immigrants. If those facts are properly sourced, there is absolutely no reason the categories cannot be added, and a complaint should be made against Jayjg for using (or threatening to use) admin tools against Wikipedia policy. Ward3001 (talk) 16:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Since when does having Jewish grandparents make one Jewish? What "agenda" do you think Jayjg has for this? If the article talks about her specific ethnicity, or if she self identifies as being Jewish, then fine, I would include the category, otherswise, what is the agenda for including it? TIA --Tom (talk) 20:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)ps, if her grandparents were Jewish, and that is all we have to go on, the more "proper" category would seem to be Americans of Jewish descent. Would that work? --Tom (talk) 20:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of how one defines "Jewish", Jayjg's agenda is that he wants all things Jewish on Wikipedia done his way. That would be a minor point (as would this issue of categories), that could be resolved through discussion on this talk page. My much larger concern is Jayjg's decision to try to intimidate with admin tools rather than discuss here like everyone else. I'm open to discussion and consensus-building regarding the categories (by the way, the article does state that she identifies herself as ethnically Jewish, though not religiously). I am not, however, open to Jayjg's improper behavior as an admin. Ward3001 (talk) 20:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I actually didn't look that closely at the article, I was more reacting to the "grandparents are Jewish" argument, ect, ect. Anyways, I am not strongly for or against the category for this bio. If you feel an admin has not acted appropriately, then take that up on the appropriate incident board and not here it seems. Anyways, good luck, Tom (talk) 21:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

The Russian jewish thing is properly sourced and well known. I remember that Goodalls biography goes through her family background. We can also source it to numerous other writings, such as [3]. She's clearly stated that she's of a jewish background and that she identifies as jewish, although this may not meet the standards of the orthodox Halakha. -Duribald (talk) 12:57, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

There should be no problem with Category:Russian-Americans, which is described as "American people who immigrated to the United States from Russia and their descendants". However, Category:Russian-American Jews is described as "American Jews who were born in Russia". She's already identified as Jewish in a couple of other categories, so that one may not be worth climbing the Reichstag to restore. I'm leaving a note on Jayjg's talk page to let him know about this discussion, not in response to his rogue admin threats, but simply because he has been a part of this disagreement. If we don't get a reasonable objection (from him or anyone else) to the Russian-American category in a day or two, we can restore it. If he decides to threaten instead of discuss, then I'm making a complaint against him. Ward3001 (talk) 17:22, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you suggested course of action and sympathize strongly with your reference to Cabal approved Wikipedia material. -Duribald (talk) 08:36, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Ryder is not of Russian ethnicity, nor was she born in Russia, nor were her parents. The claim that she is a "Russian-American" confounds both logic and common sense, regardless of what some Wikipedia editor has put at the top of a Category page. However, there's a much simpler, WP:BLP-compliant way of solving this issue; provide a reliable source that describes her as a "Russian-American". Jayjg ^(talk) 17:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

By that logic it is stupid to call black Americans "African-Americans". They are not born in Africa, nor were their parents, and they do not have an African culture (Do they speak Swahili, perhaps?). "Russian-Americans" are Americans of Russian descent. That is the definition used by the Wikipedia article on Russian-Americans and the definition used commonly and the definition of the category. All we have to source is that she is of Russian descent. This is already done. There is nothing that "confounds" logic and common sense about this. And stop throwing BLP around. You read BLP like the Devil reads scripture. -Duribald (talk) 18:08, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, it is not up to Wikipedia editors to decide which individuals are "African-Americans"; we don't get to apply our own "one-drop rule" to individuals. Rather, Wikipedia describes as "African-American" individuals who are described that way by reliable sources. There seems to be some sort of fetish on Wikipedia for placing people in various tiny ethnicity/origin boxes. While I cannot stop people from engaging in this odd behavior, I can, at least, ensure that for the articles I come across, these categorizations comply with WP:BLP. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:21, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Please explain how she does not fit into a category that is described as "American people who immigrated to the United States from Russia and their descendants". Repeat: "and their descendants". It is sourced in the article that her grandparents immigrated from Russia. That makes her a descendent of Russians. Ward3001 (talk) 17:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the category lede doesn't say that any more - I've changed it to be compliant with WP:V and WP:BLP. Again, as I pointed out in my previous comment,

1. The description defied both logic and common sense. If an individual had one great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandparent who immigrated from Russia, would we describe them as a "Russian-American"? Is there are sort of "one-drop rule" at work here too?
2. The description was particularly inappropriate for Ryder, who in any event is not of Russian ethnicity, but rather of Jewish ethnicity. If anything, the "Russian-Jewish American" category would be more appropriate (though that is highly dubious too), but that is not sourced either.
3. What a Wikipedia editor had previously put at the top of a category page is not relevant. In order to comply with WP:V and WP:BLP, material must be properly sourced to reliable sources. That means the Wikipedia editors don't get to decide what ethnicity categories a person falls into, but, rather, reliable sources do.

I hope I won't have to state these points a third time. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:21, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

"Third time" is quite misleading. I hope you will repeat your points sufficiently for others to make sense out of them rather than hide behind your admin tools or obscure rationales that you refused to discuss even one time until forced to do so when other editors have demanded that you do so. Please explain how someone cannot be both Russian and Jewish, as were her grandparents. Are you saying that being Jewish automatically excludes someone from any nationality or citizenship in any country? And my other point is in regard to your repeatedly stating "defies both logic and common sense": Please be aware that there is some interpretation involved in the concepts of logic and common sense. And you alone do not define those concepts or decide how they will be interpreted on Wikipdia. Ward3001 (talk) 18:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

"Russian Jew" is a specific ethnicity, or, rather, sub-ethnicity, being a sub-ethnicity of "Ashkenazi Jews", which in turn is a sub-ethnicity of "Jew". A "Russian Jew" is not an ethnic Russian - these groups had different ancestral and geographic origins, lived, for the most part, in different communities, practiced different faiths, and even spoke different languages (Yiddish for the former, Russian for the latter). You'll note that the article on the latter is careful to distinguish between ethnic Russians and Russian Jews. It is misleading at best to equate the two. For that matter, people who describe their ancestors as "Russian Jews" often do so only in a very inexact way; the vast majority actually came from the Ukraine or Belarus, as a result of being forced to live in the Pale of Settlement. In any event, as I've pointed out, even if you were unaware of the difference between Russian Jews and ethnic Russian, the rules of WP:V and WP:BLP still apply; they both demand that we only describe as "Russian American" people who reliable sources describe as "Russian-American". Jayjg ^(talk) 18:50, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

We do not have to source the wording, just the information presented in the article. As a matter of fact we are not allowed to copy sources straight off, we have to reword them, otherwise it's a copyright infringement. And the sources certainly do not have to use exactly the wording chosen for the title of a specific category on Wikipedia. There's no one-drop theory at work here. Ryder is 50% of Russian-Jewish descent (sourced) she's been raised with awareness of her background (as sourced in RfC below). If you don't want Russian-American, we can do Russian-American Jew, which you have admitted to her family being. -Duribald (talk) 19:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

You don't have any sources describing her as "Russian-American", though. You have sources saying her paternal grandparents were Russian Jews who immigrated to the United States. I would have no issue if you were adding Category:Descendants of Russian immigrants to America. A more accurate Cat would be Category:Descendants of Russian Jews. However, you are instead adding Category:Russian-Americans. They are not the same thing. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Let me get this straight. You're saying that a citizen of the country of Russia cannot be described as a Russian. Forget the Jewish ethnicity. I just want to know if Jews who have Russian citizenship should not be referred to as Russians, and if so, does that mean that Jews cannot be described as Americans, or British, or French, or whatever country in which they hold citizenship. By the same token, are African-Americans who descended from Africa not to be referred to as "American"? It's a simple question involving "logic and common sense" that should not require esoteric descriptions involving Jewish ethnicity or ancestry. Ward3001 (talk) 18:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

As you well know (or should), "African-American" is a specific ethnicity. Regarding Jewish ethnicity (and no, one cannot "forget" it), if a Russian Jew emigrates to the United States, I would not object to describing them as a "Russian-American". However, describing all of their descendants, unto the n-th generation, as "Russian-Americans", would be inappropriate on logical and factual grounds - and, most importantly, on WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:BLP grounds. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:07, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

First of all, African-Americans are a specific ethnicity, but you didn't answer my question: Should they not be referred to as Americans? Secondly, as I have repeatedly requested here and elsewhere, please give us the specific wording in WP:BLP that prohibits including in Category:Russian-Americans the grandchildren of those Russians who immigrated to the United States. You've already made it abundantly clear what your unusual interpretation of "logic and common sense" is. Now, I'm specifically asking for the exact wording in WP:BLP that makes that prohibition. You can argue "logic and common sense" all you want, but I'm not asking for your logic and common sense. I'm asking for the words in WP:BLP that excludes grandchildren. Ward3001 (talk) 19:13, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

You are not trying to add Category:Descendants of Russian immigrants to America to the article, but rather, Category:Russian-Americans. Therefore, rather than finding sources that say Ryder is descended from people who emigrated from Russia to America, you need sources describing her as "Russian-American". You have not produced any reliable sources doing so. The specific statements in the policy are clear:

Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States and to all of our content policies, especially Neutral point of view (NPOV); Verifiability; No original research

It's hard to miss, it's the first paragraph. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Should_Category:Russian-Americans_be_included?

Should Category:Russian-Americans be included? The category is described as ""American people who immigrated to the United States from Russia and their descendants". There is a sourced statement that her grandparents immigrated from Russia.

• Favor - See the discussion in the section immediately above. Also note that Jayjg removed the description at the top of the category page when he found out it is the rationale for this RfC. Ward3001 (talk) 18:29, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
• Favour - Ryder is of 50% Russian descent, and has, according to several sources - like [4] and [5] - been raised with awareness of her Russian background. And I changed the category definition back, by the way. -Duribald (talk) 18:45, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused - the Pravda article quotes the actress as acknowledging her ancestry - isn't ancestry half of what it means to be categorized as <ancestry>-<citenship> - to be a citizen of place "x" and descended from those from place "y"? My grandparents are from Sicily, and I'm a U.S. citizen, so am I not a Sicilian American (and Italian-American)? I am sincere in this question. Cheers, and best of luck to all in resolving this issue. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 20:21, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I hate to break it to you, but it appears that the powers that have control here (and I'm not one of them, of course) have proclaimed that what you think of yourself in terms of ethnic identity is completely irrelevant. The only thing that matters to these wikicontrollers is whether someone else says that you're Sicilian-American or Italian-American. It doesn't matter whether you were raised hearing the Italian language all your life and learning on a daily basis the traditions of your Italian heritage (and thereby consider yourself Italian-American). You have to get someone else in a reliable source to pronounce you "Italian-American". Furthermore, that someone else must use that exact phrase. It can't be "of Italian ancestry" or "second generation Italian". And the "someone else" who proclaims you "Italian-American" doesn't have to know anything about Italians or Italian-Americans. The only requirement is that it is published in a reliable source and the phrase "Italian-American" is used. Welcome to wikiworld. And be careful if you express disagreement on this; you may be threatened with a block. Ward3001 (talk) 21:06, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the article quotes Ryder as saying "I wish I could make a film about Russia or World Ward [sic] Two one day. Most of my father’s relatives perished in Gulag." That's nothing at all like quoting her as saying she is "Russian-American". Also, please read the rest of the discussion below, which outlines the difference between Russian Jews and Russians. In short, different ethnicities: different origins, different religions, different languages, different cultures. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Like I said 4wajzkd02, when the powers that be speak here, you are no longer Sicilian American, regardless of whether the real world considers you to be Sicilian American simply because your grandparents are from Sicily and you consider yourself Sicilian American. How stupid of the rest of world to disagree with wikiworld! (Oops! Someone's Freudian slip is showing). Ward3001 (talk) 00:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're going on about, but if you're referring to the phrase "World Ward Two", that's what it says in the source - which may well be relevant in determining whether or not it has proper editorial oversight, but has little bearing on Freud. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

• Irrelevant. Actually, two of Ryder's grandparents were Russian Jews - that's not the same as being "of 50% Russian descent". In any event, votes don't overturn WP:BLP. Find reliable sources that describe her as "Russian-American". Jayjg ^(talk) 18:51, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Correction: "Votes" (or consensus) can define BLP, regardless of your opinion. Ward3001 (talk) 18:56, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Votes cannot decide BLP here, though. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Correction: You can't decide BLP. Stop claiming a special status, you're an administrator, not God. Your interpretation of BLP is odd to say the least. -Duribald (talk) 19:02, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

It's up to all admins to enforce BLP; that includes me. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Jayjg, please give us the specific statements in WP:BLP that prohibit the Category:Russian-Americans from including people who are descendants of Russians who immigrated to the United States, if it is reliable sourced that a person is such a descendant. If you consider this an inapppropriate venue, then please do so Category talk:Russian-Americans. Ward3001 (talk) 19:07, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

We are not discussing Category:Descendants of Russian immigrants to America, rather, we are discussing Category:Russian-Americans. Therefore, rather than finding sources that say Ryder is descended from people who emigrated from Russia to America, you need sources describing her as "Russian-American". You have not produced any reliable sources doing so. The specific statements in the policy are clear:

Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States and to all of our content policies, especially Neutral point of view (NPOV); Verifiability; No original research

It's hard to miss, it's the first paragraph. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• This shouldn't be included. There's a general practice that we don't include racial/ethnic descriptors unless we have explicit sourcing saying the person is in that category. That prevents us from getting into issues about self-identification or having issues when people have many different ancestries or from having to decide just how much of some ancestry is needed for the category. (Incidentally, I don't think this is anywhere near serious enough a BLP issue to justify continual reverting or protection or blocks or the like.) JoshuaZ (talk) 19:22, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments even though we have different points of view, Joshuaz. What we agree entirely on is that protection and blocks are entirely uncalled for here. Ward3001 (talk) 19:44, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

No, no, no, Jayjg. That's your interpretation of BLP as well as your interpretation of the term "Russian-American". I think if you look around, you'll see many people described on Wikipedia as "Italian-American" who are several generations away from their ancestors who were Italian citizens. You'll see people described as African-American who also are many generations from Africa, and NOT because they are ethnically "Negro", but because they are American citizens whose ancestors lived in Africa. I want the specific words in WP:BLP that prohibits inclusion of grandchildren of Russians who immigrated to the United States. You alone do not decide how to intepret BLP. As has been pointed out, you are an administrator, not God. You're not even Jimbo. So please give the specific wording that prohibits including granchildren. If you can't give us that, then we are quibbling about interpretation, not "violation of content policies". Ward3001 (talk) 19:30, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Whenever an issue is raised regarding WP:BLP and correct sourcing, then we don't need to waste a lot of time arguing about interpretations. All we do is look at the source, and see if it is a) reliable, and b) clearly states what has been included in the article. Does the source clearly state a person is "African-American" or "Italian-American" or "Russian-American"? If so, great, use the category. If not, it stays out. The onus is not on me to find "specific wording that prohibits grandchildren" in a policy - that's an absurd and irrelevant level of detail. Rather, the onus is on you, as an editor, to find a reliable source that backs up your claim. Find a reliable source describing Ryder as "Russian-American". Regarding the rest, yes, you have made many personal comments about me here and on other pages. Stop doing so. Comment on content, not on the contributor.. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:34, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll stop commenting on the contributor if the contributor behaves like a reasonable editor rather than supreme ruler of Wikipedia. And you still have not given us the words in WP:BLP that excludes grandchildren. Ward3001 (talk) 19:39, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

No vote or consensus here can override or define BLP policy, as User:Ward3001 seemed to suggest. The general debate of what makes somebody Russian-American is interesting, but irrelevant. What's needed are reliable sources that state explicitly that she Russian-American (using the term itself). Categories are binary; you're in, or you're out. So there has to be clear consensus of reliable sources. As always with BLP, the entire onus of proof rests with those wishing to include the claim. Without such proof, with appropriate inline citations in the article (text of article should explicitly state status), the claim may be removed, without regard to the 3RR rule. --Rob (talk) 19:45, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

In that case you should remove the "Actors from Minnesota" category. There's no source that uses that exact phrase. It's inferred from her being born in Minnesota. We do not have to use exactly the same words in an article as in a source; as a matter of fact we have to rephrase information the whole time, for copyright reasons, for aesthetic reasons or to make the information fit the context. To demand sources for the wording is not what WP:V or WP:BLP ar about. It's about sourcing the information conveyed. You do not need a source to call a shovel a shovel or a mother's father a grandfather. Categories flow from the main text and are tools for finding information - they do not in themselves have to be sourced. To be useful a category has to have a definition of what constitutes a member of that category, like "descendents of Russian immigrants to America". A definition of the "someone once called this person a Russian-American Jew" type is useless, since different people then can have very different definitions. It's much more logical to have a definition of a category that fits the definition found in the corresponding Wikipedia article (Isn't this the usual practice, by the way?) and then require sources that fit that definition. That way the category becomes useful in the very practical sense that you know what you get. -Duribald (talk) 20:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

If an actor is reliably sourced to be from Minnesota, then they're from Minnesota. If you want a better analogy, it would be if I removed the category "Russian-American" from someone who was born in Russia, and moved to America. Ryder was not born in Russia. Her parents weren't even born in Russia. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:11, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

"If an actor is reliably sourced to be from Minnesota, then they're from Minnesota." And - if an actor is reliably sourced to be of direct Russian descent, then he/she is Russian-American, according to normal definitions, and according to the definition of the Wikipedia article on the subject. Why, by the way should people born in Russia be excepted from the sourcing rule? That's just your personal definition of a Russian-American. Is it, BTW, just moving to America, or do you have to be a naturalized citizen? Or define yourself as Russian-American? Or what? And why do your definitions have precedence? -Duribald (talk) 20:29, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

However, Ryder is not reliably sourced to be "of Russian descent", nor are you trying to put an Americans of Russian descent category on the article. Rather, Ryder is reliably sourced to be "of Russian-Jewish descent", and therefore, to make your analogy work, you'd have to be trying to include Category:Americans of Russian-Jewish descent. As for the rest of your comment, I haven't said anyone should be exempt from the "sourcing rule". If you can find sources describing her as "Russian" and "American", or "Russian-American", then you will have properly sourced it. Those aren't "my sourcing rules", they're Wikipedia's sourcing rules. You're the one who has invented what you call "normal definitions", not me. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

By the way - "Russian-American" is an American English expression. A non-American source is much more likely to just make mention of her Russian background in another way. -Duribald (talk) 20:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Really? According to whom is that the case? Jayjg ^(talk) 20:11, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

You have to be joking. The hyphenation thing is trademark American. -Duribald (talk) 20:29, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

No, I wasn't joking. Do you have any sources on that? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:19, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the second sentence, I don't have to show you a special "grandchildren" policy; rather, you need to find a reliable source describing Ryder as "Russian-American", per WP:BLP. See Rob's comments immediately above. Regarding the first, Comment on content, not on the contributor. No excuses. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Source that she is Russian-American: [6]. It's as reliable as Wikipedia and about 90% of sources used on Wikipedia, but of course POV-pushers will find something wrong with it. Ward3001 (talk) 20:00, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

TripAtlas.com? You can't be serious. On top of everything else, it's a Wikipedia mirror; read the bottom of the page. Please provide something reliable. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:05, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Surprisingly, I agree with you on that one. Wikipedia mirrors are definitely not good sources. I still disagree with everything else you've said (and refused to say until it was demanded) on this issue. Ward3001 (talk) 20:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• Eliminate the category. And all other ethnic categories. They cause nothing but trouble and don't really tell anybody anything. 6SJ7 (talk) 22:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Wrong procedure. Before deciding — or voting on — the inclusion, we MUST have at least one reliable, independent (!) source that W.R. is actually considered a Russian-American actor. (Not Russian-Jewish American, Russian-American Jew etc.) Concerning hyphenated ethnicities/nationalities, they exist in abundance outside USA — e.g., Norwegian norsk-pakistaner about Norwegians of Pakistani descent. Please remember: The inclusion of a fact frequently lends itself to voting, the establishment of one doesn’t. -- Olve Utne (talk) 23:20, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

It's the underlying facts that have to be sourced, according to Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Categories: "The article must state the facts that result in the use of the category tag and these facts must be sourced." A Wikipedia article will have just one name, but that doesn't mean there is just one way of expressing the contents of this expression. See my comment at Category_talk:Russian-Americans. -Duribald (talk) 23:28, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Fine. Since the Category is "Russian-American", then all we need to find are sources saying she is "Russian", and sources saying she is "American". Now, where is your source that says Ryder is "Russian"? Not a source that says two of her paternal grandparents were "Russian Jews" who immigrated to the U.S., but a source that says Ryder herself is Russian. I won't even insist on a source that says she's "American", we'll take that for granted, given her and her parents' birth-places and residency. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

That was just an example. The point is that BLP does not require a word for word match. It only requires that you "state the facts that result in the use of the category" and that you provide sources for the facts. Which has been done in this article according to the same standard used otherwise when people are categorized. For example in the article about Michelle Trachtenberg it is said that her mother is from Russia and she speaks Russian. Consequently she is categorized as Russian-American. This is the way it's always done. The normal definition, and the definition according to the Wikipedia article on the subject, is that a Russian American is a person who migrated to America or a descendant thereof. That's what people expect to find when they use categories like this. It's not an exact term, no, but that's not the point. Wikipedia uses categories according to ethnicity, and such categories will never be precise.

You have stated that you have a right to block or protect a page to enforce BLP. That is correct, but the reason people react to what you're doing is that this requires the material to be unsourced (the facts are sourced), to be a conjectural interpretation of the source (a reference to original research - not applicable), to rely upon self-published sources (not a factor) or to rely upon sources that otherwise fail to meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability. But the sources are not the issue here, but the definition of a Russian American or Russian-American Jew etc. This is NOT reason to threaten block someone.

You argue for your own definition of a Russian-American Jew, for example, which is based in a definition not on quoting sources. You say it's someone who is born in Russia that migrated to America. This is by no means a bad or stupid definition. It can be used. But it is not given by God or nature. It's not self evident. Nor is it sourced. It is based in your idea that a person who is born in America is nothing but American. For example you removed Category:Irish-Americans and Category:Americans of Jewish descent from the Laura Prepon article, stating tht she couldn't be either of those because her parents were both born in America. This is NOT according to normal definitions, as reflected for example in the respective Wikipedia articles: for example Irish Americans are defined as: "...citizens of the United States who trace their ancestry to Ireland.". And to say that you can't be of Jewish descent because both your parents are born in America?

You try to make questions of definition into questions of sources and you try to advocate your own, personal definitions of who's a Hyphenated-American. Then you rigidly claim this to be not you, but BLP. If you want to interpret this as a personal attack - I noticed that you accused me of "multiple egregious personal attacks" behind my back - then I can't stop you. I just think that Russian-Americans and other Hyphenated-American categories correspond linguistically to the "of X:ian descent" categories of other nationalities (it's in Category:People_of_Russian_descent). The vast majority of American "of descent" categories are called Hyphenated-American. And in their corresponding Wikipedia articles the concepts are defined as I and Ward define the concept. -Duribald (talk) 00:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

My removal of the category "Americans of Jewish descent" at the Laura Prepon article was a simple error, and I did not remove it again when I removed the rest of the unsourced Cats. I have no issue with inserting that Cat, and have done so when appropriate. Regarding the Category "Russian-American", it's clear that its definition is, at best, confusing, and as I've shown quite clearly, inappropriate here. More importantly, because the Cat is of dubious appropriateness, it must be properly sourced. If you wish to create the category Category:Americans descended from Russian Jews I would have no issue with you adding it to this article, as that category is well sourced here. However, if you wish to add the category Russian-Americans, then you'll need to find reliable sources that described Ryder as "Russian" or "Russian-American". And I seriously doubt you will. You know why? Because I'm pretty sure that neither she, nor anyone else, defines her identity that way. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment (I hate votes) - I would leave this category out unless you have a reliable source that calls her a "Russian-American". I don't like the argument that just because her grandparents were from Russia, that makes her "Russian". If in doubt, defer to RSs. Anyways, these categories have been problematic since forever and I repsect the folks who think differently on this. Good luck with this. Tom (talk) 04:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment - for consistency's sake, all (blank)-American categories should be defined the same way- either "descended from", "born" or possibly "first or second generation". we could require that a rs state the precise phrase, or infer it from meeting the criteria of the consensus defintion. any of those is fine with me, as long as it is achieved through consensus and not arbitrarily applied to just a few categories. this kind of haphazardness causes blp problems in itself. for instance, Category:Russian-American Jews was recently changed to state: "born in Russia" but still contains bella azbug, richard brooks and saul bellow - and probably more - none of whom were born in russia. my suggestion is to open an rfc for ethnic categories in general and let the community decide how to define all of these and the criteria for inclusion, untwirl(talk) 19:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree 100 percent that if one category is a BLP violation that must be stricken without discussion, then all should be. I have asked Jayjg if he will defend this action when I systematically change all similar categories and the inevitable outcries of unfairness come flooding out from editors who feel that their favorite butcher, baker, and candlestick maker should not have the category removed. Ward3001 (talk) 20:10, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Jayjg has not responded to my request for support in defending removal of "descended from" in all similar categories. Thus, I must assume that he only intends to selectively support correcting what he considers a serious BLP violation. It's baffling. Ward3001 (talk) 17:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• Ryder doesn't meet my understanding of what a "Russian-American" would be. If she does, then I myself am a Russian-American... and I've never described myself as such, nor would I. Her grandparents would be Russian-Americans, perhaps, but describing her that way should require a specific source that says "Winona Ryder, Russian American, ..." Avruch ^T 15:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't creating an American version of "Category:British people of Russian descent" solve this argument? Sillyfolkboy (talk) 12:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Real Surname her dad is Tomchin!!! Tomchin is typical RUSSIAN surname!http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000213/bio —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.179.84.157 (talk) 18:34, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Edited filmography

Hey everyone, i edited winona ryder's filmography, which earlier showed a "bollywood" movie named welcome and said it was directed by kirsten dunst, oh please, so i edited it and the filmography section is messed up, so if anyone can help get it right, it would be nice..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amijeet (talk • contribs) 06:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Welcome is the name of multiple movies. One of which is Bollywood production, that obviously didn't involve Ryder or Dunst. Another did involve both, but the only reference for it is on IMDB, which is very sparse on information on it, so it's best to keep it out until there's another source. I tried fixing the table, but there's still a flaw. Unfortunately, people decided to "get fancy" with table formatting features. It's really a bad idea to use "rowspan" is a table that changes regularly. --Rob (talk) 06:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Um, because you couldn't fix the table doesn't mean that the table got too fancy or it is a bad idea. It means there was an errant line. Rowspan is used regularly, on a myriad of articles. Because it got screwed up doesn't make it a bad idea. And there is far more than one reference out there for the Dunst short film called Welcome, which I returned with a reference to the Palm Springs International Film Festival where it was screened during the Shortfest. [7] Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Um, actually, there are a lot of pretty little formatting features that aren't used, because this is a wiki, with many people editing it. By having these purely decorative features, we've made it harder for people to improve. For instance, a useful feature for a table of this size, is to make it re-sortable, but that's incompatible with "rowspan". Also, I'm happy you found a new reference, which I didn't see before, good for you, good for you. --Rob (talk) 19:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah i see the refrence now and cool it's all good, all i wanted was to get the matter sorted, sorry for the disruption..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amijeet (talk • contribs) 20:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Winona's Grandfather

I added information that Winona's grandfather is Israel Horowitz, an American record producer who was born in New York City in 1916, who was already listed in Wikipedia. So he was not born in Russia. I get the sense that Winona, bless her heart, might not be the best source for encyclopedia information on her family. In another article she said that her grandmother was 99 years old. I gathered from the article that this information was dated approximately 1999, because it indicated that Winona was 28 at the time. That would mean that her grandmother was born in 1900 and was 16 years older than her husband. Anything is possible. Someone might want to look at it more closely. Pamdhiga (talk) 02:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Freebase.com is a Wiki-mirror - a site that copies the Wikipedia bio we have. I am not so sure that this guy - Israel Horowitz - was really her grandfather. But I could be wrong. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 03:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

What, exactly, is a "ha", please?

After trying to find a definition in several English-language dictionaries, I was compelled to delete the mysterious "120 ha" parenthetical that appears after "300 acres" (ctrl-f either phrase), but when I opened the article to edit I was faced with this even more mysterious tag: {{convert|300|acre|ha|adj=on}}. Obviously there's hoodoo going on here with which I'm not familiar, but unless someone can explain it I'm tempted still to delete it, because I'm afraid of magic I do not understand. Not to mention units of measurement that don't belong in the "en." version of WP. But I also don't want to be an ass, so I'd like to wait and see whether someone can clear this up for me. Love, Sugarbat (talk) 21:53, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

It's short for hectare. No clue if it's policy or not to include it, so can't tell you what to do with it. :-) You won't break the page replacing the template with "300 acres" though. Erzsébet Báthory_{(talk|contr.)} 22:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much, Elizabeth! And with that explanation, I feel justified in getting rid of the tag. I can't think of a good reason for including the hectares version of the size of the commune to which it refers (the context of neither "commune" or the Rider article seems to warrant its inclusion); thus "ha" is probably superfluous/distracting. I half-suspect a bot here -- a little hectare-fairy running around WP tapping articles w/hectare-conversion wand -- but I don't have the time nor motivation to hunt down every instance to see whether it's relevant. I'll tidy this one and then outs, Sugarbat (talk) 16:38, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Including metric conversions is standard practice (see MOS:CONVERSIONS). Lots of people don't know how big an acre is, even in English-speaking countries.

—WWoods (talk) 17:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Imagery

Would this (licensed CC-BY) suffice as a replacement image for this article? To supplant the current image depicting two separate people. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 01:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Should be uploaded to Commons. GregorB (talk) 21:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Just going to bring this up again, the said image above was posted on the article here and then removed due to 'flickr washing' here. Meanwhile the image has been requested to be used by two third party websites / documents here, therefore kind of contradicting the argument made here on wikipedia that the image was not the persons own work from flickr. Do anyone have any thoughts about this? Monkeymanman (talk) 01:02, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

The person who uploaded it on Flickr is not the copyright holder, so he cannot release it under a CC license. See more about it here at Commons, where the Flickr user is even listed under users to avoid. Nymf _hideliho! 01:18, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Got you, thanks for clearing that up. I am surprised that both flickr and the person holding copyright on the image have not taken it further with said person. Monkeymanman (talk) 16:47, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

The lead section is not quite NPOV

The overall tone of the lead section feels too emotional, with sentences like this: "...after appearing in numerous critically acclaimed, box office successes, Ryder emerged as one of the most celebrated actresses of her generation." And the source pointed to a uncheckable "bio". (BTW, I don't see something like "one of the most celebrated actresses of her generation" written on Kate Winslet's page.) Then there's the concluding sentence: "Ryder returned to the screen which prompted several media outlets to call her performance "a remarkable comeback" to acting." It's actually just two. I think it's best that we stick to the "facts". - Artoasis (talk) 07:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Since nobody addressed this issue, I've made a few changes to the lead section myself. I brought this up because I liked her as an actress, and it made me cringe to see weasel expressions like "one of the most celebrated". Let's be honest, it's the go-to description for popular actors who have nothing substantial to show for. Ryder is a two-time Oscar nominee, and she doesn't need condescending phrases like this. - Artoasis (talk) 10:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Untitled

No mention of her dating Dave Pirner? This was major news in the 90s — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.49.23.18 (talk) 04:59, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Dumb trend

What's with this Judaocentric trend to include in every biography on wikipedia sentences like "X describes themselves as Jewish because they once said ____" They could once describe themselves as a pterodactyl, we're not going to put "Winona Ryder once said she was a pterodactyl." The woman is half Jewish by ethnicity. She doesn't appear to be a serious adherent to any specific religion. Why is that not enough? Why do we have to include every ludicrous detail about this person's introspective identity? It's a wikipedia biography, not a Freudian psychoanalytic essay on the woman. 96.251.79.147 (talk) 22:23, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

My guess is it's because without such notations, editors come around and remove categories and text, saying that there's no evidence the person self-identifies as Jewish. The best example of this process is probably Talk:Bill_Maher#Is Maher Jewish?, which resulted in the addition of the phrase "He subsequently self-identified himself as ethnically half-Jewish" to Maher's biography. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 09:16, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

You can't "establish" yourself an ethnicity. You are or aren't. There's no reason to include whether the person "says outloud" that they're Jewish or not. We don't do this for any other ethnicity. 96.251.79.147 (talk) 10:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Might be an idea to raise this at the films project discussion, or ask for RFC. It has been in the article for some time and i am quite sure it was there when it was nominated good article. Might also be an idea to leave it in for now as it did have consensus. Monkeymanman (talk) 13:59, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Is there a page where a consensus has been found to deal with biographies of people with Jewish descent in this way? If so, direct me to it. 96.251.79.147 (talk) 14:21, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

There wont be one. Each article is focussed on individually with guidelines set out by each project. In this case Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers. This article did have consensus for that inclusion (i would judge that by the fact it got past GA status with it included). If you are unsure how to go about it i could raise it on the noticeboard and ask for any outside help. Although with it being sourced reliably that she actually said it then it might be a forgone conclusion. Monkeymanman (talk) 14:31, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

The second picture looks like Julia Roberts.....

I am not a specialist but as a fan of Julia Roberts I am almost convinced that the picture in the middle is of Julia not Winona Ryder. Please correct it if I am right.

You're not serious? It looks nothing like Julia Roberts. And the source file of the image by the photographer states that it's Winona Ryder. Almost everything about those two actresses is different: nose, mouth, eyes, hair. As a fan of Julia Roberts, maybe you should take a look at some more pics of her. Cresix (talk) 20:56, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

The Crucible

There are many comparisons in this film that are prevalent to today, and religeons spawning from ancient books. There are two books that have been used for what is not sound to a human being, yet no one reports things this way. Many seem to have sold fears, and others perceive that they are needed, instead of proving what is sound psychologically. Kabbalah is a relative form of Mysticism that brings many results, and can be proven psychologically to improve outlooks for those with mental troubles.69.96.8.3 (talk) 12:07, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

And what has this got to do with Ryder? --BwB (talk) 15:36, 27 December 2010 (UTC)