Talk:Winona Ryder

"Marriage" to Keanu Reeves still listed

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

Thanks for noticing. It was removed by the closing admin at the time, but no-one noticed when it was re-added a few months later. I have removed it again. --Meters (talk) 03:33, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

This is still being added repeatedly, against the RFC consensus at Talk:Winona Ryder/Archive 2#RfC: "Marriage" to Keanu Reeves. Meters (talk) 19:53, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

New sources:

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

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

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

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

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

• Winonaryder1990.png

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

Removal of WP:SYN inclusions

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

Free Winona

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

 Comment: - Some points I want to make:

1. I'm not going to question your adjustments to the lead paragraph. More power to you, in all sincerity. I believe that it is our responsibility to present Winona Ryder as an actress whose achievements deserves to be spotlighted in a more complimentary way. Similar articles of actors who were in the same situation don't consider their past mistakes to be the biggest highlight; unfair when comparing it to her article whose past mistakes were unfairly elevated before your edits.

2a. "Goofy" and "caught her at a bad angle"? That's understandable, given the scarce freely licensed photos which are usually public events with varying angles, varying quality, varying lighting.

2b. Just to indulge you, I'll justify keeping the 2010 Toronto International Film Festival (TIFF) photo: it's the most portrait-like photo of all of the available photos on Wikimedia Commons that has very little intrusive elements (e.g. group of people, nature, blurry captures), and decent lighting. When compared to more recent photos like Sundance 2015, or older photos at a Marc Jacobs event on Wikimedia, it is of higher resolution. However, that definition would also be applicable to the 2009 photo at Giffoni Film Festival (Giffoni) you selected: portrait-like, least intrusive, and high-res... and no TIFF promo texts.

3. I like both - so why I reverted it, is because I disagree with the inclusion of the 2009 photo as the infobox photo. Why I disagree with it: the original photo itself is underexposed and the lighting around her face is not well lit even after some adjustments. The one you selected is adjusted as far as it could, and it may work, but the 2010 TIFF photo is sufficiently lit from the moment it was captured, and it allows easier adjustments. That's one thing that keeps me from accepting that 2009 photo.

4. I will admit this is my personal opinion, but it is personal opinions informed by observations. However, if the consensus decides to go with the 2009 photo, I'll accept that as it is. Except there is no consensus... yet. I hope all of this explains it. No hard feelings. Misterpither (talk) 14:12, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

I read your comments several times to let it sink in. This is obviously a stalemate, and I don't see what I could say to move this forward, other than I hope you won't oppose the addition of new or different images if and when they do present themselves. Viriditas (talk) 19:43, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Reference may not exist

She has been accused of sexually abusing Haley Joel Osment in 1999.

Clicking on this link gave me an error. My gut feeling is that it's trolling, but I'm trying to assume good faith. Snowman304|talk 04:35, 1 June 2024 (UTC)