Talk:Cynthia Watros

Untitled

It seems kinda meanspirited to put an unflattering mugshot in the article, especially since that's not really what she's famous for. I'm not really sure of the protocol, though, so I'm not going to remove it. SchnappM 04:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I mean, mentioning the arrest is okay, I guess, and I'm sure if anyone would want to then look up the mugshot on their own, well, that's okay.

It doesn't seem right to me. The Nick Nolte and Bobby Brown articles don't have any mugshots, even though such are available. I'd like to hear an admin weigh in on this.Bjones 18:12, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Can somebody remove the mug shot? I mean, I don't see anyone arguing for it, and it's not like a person can't find it on their own if they really wanted to see it. I'd do it myself, but I just tried to and didn't know what to delete in the descriptive part with all the words. - guy who wrote comment #2.

Why is 1/2 the article devoted to the DUI & the mug shot? This lady has a great body of work and I was a classmate of hers at B.U. Is it news? Yes. But enyclopedic? I beg to differ. (NOTE: The same applies to Michelle Rodriguez, with the exception that I was not her classmate.)Woodson 06:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

To answer questions and comments about the mug shot: (1) The image is relevant because it relates to a portion of the article about her arrest. (2) Removing it would likely be a violation of the WP:NPOV policy. We are not a collection of pretty pictures, and removing it because we don't like it would be POV. (3) It's her own fault for looking like crap in her mug shot. (4) The mug shot is public domain. As a project to create a free encyclopedia, we are strongly encouraged to use free content over "fair use". If I was really evil, I would make the argument that Image:Cynthia watros.jpg should not be in the article because it is copyrighted as there is an adequate PD image (WP:FAC. (but I won't, because I'm not evil).--Fallout boy 07:11, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Me again. I say that we remove the photo simply because keeping it is not a NPOV. It is a bias that we keep the photo. Here's why:

- Celebrities get arrested all the time. However, for every celebrity that gets arrested, they don't have their photo put up on this site. As stated from the above comments, Bobby Brown, Nick Nolte, and Matthew Mcconnhaey (who I added and spelt his name wrong), DO NOT have their arrest photo on their site because it's NOT appropriate. Why do they get a free pass and Cynthia doesn't? That's a real bias.

- Nobody argued that it violated public domain. Yes, it's public domain, but does that mean we have to put it up? Just because it's out there, that doesn't mean it's worth posting on a neutral site. Furthermore, I feel that the juxtaposition of one "pretty" photo and another "ugly" photo makes the article even LESS NEUTRAL - it implies that Cynthia looks like crap in real life.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.253.172.209 (talk • contribs)

Whether it's "NOT Appropriate" is your own opinion. Nick Nolte doesn't have a mug shot in his article because there's only one sentence dedicated to his arrest, whereas nearly a third of this article is about her arrest. Many articles have images of mugshots, like Michael Jackson, Tom DeLay, Bill Gates, Jane Fonda, James Frey, Andre the Giant, Lil' Kim, and many more. "it implies that Cynthia looks like crap in real life": maybe she DOES look like crap in real life. "I feel that the juxtaposition of one "pretty" photo and another "ugly" photo makes the article even LESS NEUTRAL": How does it make it less neutral? If anything, it makes it more neutral. Part of neutrality is not glossing over and avoiding everything negative about a subject. If anything, having only her "pretty" photo makes this page more fanboyish.--Fallout boy 23:57, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia's "Five Pillars," Wikipedia is an encylopedia, not a newspaper. The photo of Cynthia's mugshot is something that would be seen in a tabloid newspaper, Entertainment Weekly, or People Magazine (and that's only if they were desperate that week), not an encylopedia. The difference between her mugshot photo and the celebrities that you've mentioned is that they are CELEBRITIES, and I feel she isn't a celebrity. Everyone you mentioned is famous enough AND/OR their crime was (in)famous enough to warrant a mugshot photo.

If the reason of keeping the photo is that it relates to the article, I say that the drunk driving section is overkill. It's tabloidism. Granted, she isn't completely unknown to the public or unpraised by critics, but the entire drunk driving arrest section should be a blurb. Also, her fame (or lack thereof) and the lack of severity or newsworthiness of the crime (even though I loathe drunk driving) is why the photo should be removed. I think almost everyone else on this discussion page agrees with the photo removal.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.253.172.209 (talk • contribs)

Please sign your posts. (1) The argument that having anything remotely newsworthy in an article automatically makes an it into a tabloid newspaper if an awfully big leap. (2) About her crime not being famous enough: it appears to be the only thing she's known for now. (3) If you think the drunk driving section is overkill, take some initiative and add material that isn't about her arrest to balance the article, instead of deleting content you dislike.--Fallout boy 09:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

“Sign your posts”? Why would anyone think that is good in the age of constant attacks in social media, or worse, recently even physical attacks! It’s bad enough the IP address is shown! Sorry it is that way, but no, thank-you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.192.29 (talk) 20:19, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I never said that "anything remotely newsworthy in an article automatically makes an it into a tabloid newspaper." First, I pointed out Wikipedia's Five Pillars Policy, pointing out how this is an encylopedia, not a newspaper. I then compared her photo to tabloids and unnewsworthiness, highlighting how she isn't a celebrity and how the media overdoes everything. Finally, I will take your advice and modifty the drunk driving section, as well as add new material. signed by 69253172209.

Since everyone seems to not want the mugshot, I'll compromise by adding it the the commons and adding a commons link.--Fallout boy 21:31, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Third opinion

The article isn't long enough (and her arrest not notable enough) to warrant a photo. We have her publicity shot up now, which seems appropriate. Fagstein 20:09, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Actaully there is no photo at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.20.221.71 (talk • contribs)

The article has been edited since Fagstein's comment, which was almost a year ago. During those edits, the photo was removed. -- Mikeblas 22:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

ITP

Watros overcame a serious disease as a teenager; she was diagnosed with Idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura, an autoimmune disease of the blood. It required several years of chemotherapy and a splenectomy. In an interview in the Season 3 DVD of Titus, she stated that she had lost her hair and gained over 100 pounds as a result of this disease.

There are some problems with the above:

• ITP is not an "autoimmune disease of the blood." It is an autoimmune disease—period. The exact mechanism by which ITP affects the patient is not fully understood, but is thought to be the result of the immune system mistaking platelets for pathogens, causing normal processes (e.g., phagocytosis in the spleen) to destroy them.

• Chemotherapy (initially, therapy with corticosteroids) and splenectomy are standard for ITP and have been so for over 50 years. Splenectomy as a remedy for ITP was first documented in 1916 and was the sole remedy until the early 1950s. There's nothing at all remarkable about her case.

• Watros overcame a serious disease... She didn't "overcome" anything. Either her case was acute (common in teenage girls) and subsided on its own or is chronic (more likely) and will require ongoing monitoring and support therapy.

• ...she stated that she had lost her hair and gained over 100 pounds as a result of this disease. Actually, ITP has no such effect on a patient. In fact, many ITP patients present with few obvious symptoms until a major platelet count crash occurs. It is possible that she did experience some side-effects from chemo (most patients do), especially if aggressive treatments were administered. However, the extreme weight gain she supposedly experienced is unlikely due to chemo. Chemo of the sort that can favorably affect ITP generally results in loss of body mass, not an increase).

Bigdumbdinosaur (talk) 22:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced material in need of sourcing

I'm moving the following unsourced material here until it can be properly sourced per WP:NOR/WP:V:

Early life

Graduating from Lake Orion High School, Watros attended Macomb Community College. She transferred to Boston University and graduated with a BFA, and like many, headed to New York City to seek fame.

Personal life

As a teenager, Watros was diagnosed with idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP), an autoimmune disease that can cause spontaneous bleeding. She was subjected to chemotherapy and a splenectomy in an effort to mitigate the problem. In an interview in the Season 3 DVD of Titus, she stated that she had lost her hair and gained over 100 pounds as a result of this disease.

Watros has had a complicated history with Guiding Light co-star Kim Zimmer. Zimmer and Watros met and became friends when they co-starred in an off-Broadway show, Four Dogs and a Bone by John Patrick Shanley. Although there is no long-standing rivalry, working in close quarters apparently caused a serious rift between them when they both appeared on Guiding Light. In particular, a physical altercation between the two actors was captured on tape during filming of a Guiding Light episode.

Watros is married to Curtis Gilliland and has twin daughters, Emma Rose Marie and Sadie Anna Marie (born July 14, 2001).

Nightscream (talk) 04:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)