Jump to content

Talk:Reese Witherspoon/Archive 1

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

Au naturel image

Get rid of the nude picture I agree. Also, there are lots of things wrong with this page. She isn't a natural brunette but ash blonde. She also spells Jean "Jeanne" and overall this article isn't written very well. Expect some changes to be made in the future!

I'm reverting this page one more time to remove the external link to the nude photograph of Reese Witherspoon. I accept that you're trying to enhance the article, but I feel your methods are inappropriate.

I'm doing this because Wikipedia is intended to be an encyclopedia, and the photograph you are linking to is not appropriate material for an encyclopedia. In addition, you are failing to provide a description of what you're linking to, which (in this case) could result in someone being exposed without warning to something they find offensive. (See Describe external links for how and some reasons why to do this).

If you feel that the image you're trying to link to is appropriate, I would very much like to discuss why.

Kenwarren 20:23, Jul 14, 2004 (UTC)


It is a picture of Reese in her natural beauty and the human body is beautiful and it should not be cover. Let celebrate the beauty of creation. There is no shame in nudity. Please add a warning to the picture if you feel it needs it but I think we should celebrate the human form all people. Only by people seeing more nudity will society realize that there is nothing wrong with the body. We should eduacate people to the wonders of the human form. I believe this world would so much a more peaceful place if we all were nude. No offensive if you are from USA but one reason why I believe the USA is so violent and hostile is because of its uptight view of nudity

No offense taken. I don't think you're trying to vandalize the page, I really think you want to enhance it and think this is a good way to do so.
I have no objection to the human form. I'm a photographer, and I've done a great deal of fine art figure work. However, I don't feel that the photograph is appropriate for Wikipedia, even as a link. It doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. There is a place for that sort of thing: a calendar, a "coffee table book" filled with photographs of stars au naturel, a movie (where I believe this image came from). But not here.
BTW, the discussion of why the US is so uptight and hostile is an interesting one, and I don't disagree with you on our Puritan morals having something to do with it. But I don't think it's relevant here.
Kenwarren 01:31, Jul 15, 2004 (UTC)


I agree with everything said above. I would like to add that what we're trying to edit here is encyclopedia. An encyclopeida can be many things (Wikipedia is nicely stretching the defenition, in a good way), but there are certain things it will never be. It will never become a photo album (e.g., when you go to the George Bush article, you don't expect to see hundreds of photos of George Bush with different poses and clothes), What about the John Kerry page not quite hundred photos but probably more than enough and it will never become a Yahoo-like link collection to everything remotely related to the article; External links surve a purpose of directing the reader to external sites of extreme relevance (e.g., the homepage of the entity described in the article) or comprehensive sites that at the moment contain more information than the existing article. Your link, besides being offensive to the "uptight" people as you call them (and why do we want offensive links??), is inappropriate on the two criteria I mentioned. It merely adds another photo of the article's subject in another pose, and it does not point to the person's homepage or even to an extensive website about this person. If you're still not convinced this link is inappropriate, here are two more things for you to think about: 1) How can we be sure this photo is authentic? If it's a "doctored" image (e.g, Reese's head with some nude model's body), you'll have to agree it's even more irrelevant. 2) Would you also expect the George Bush article to have a nude photo of him? And the Pope's article? If not, what makes Reese Witherspoon different? Is it her being female? Nyh 16:58, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

put pix of naked men too if you got them why does everyone assuem that there is as something sexual about nudity or even worse pornographic is it sexual for you when you are showering or putting on clothes is it pornoraphic for you when you take your clothes off at the doctor's office?

Why are we even arguing this? Including pornography, or naked pictures, in an article such as this is ridiculous. I somehow doubt there is anyone here who is going to disagree, apart from our mysterious anon. It's simply a matter to revert on sight, and IMHO, ban as vandalism if he doesn't quit it. Ambivalenthysteria 02:18, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Gay Icon Project

In my effort to merge the now-deleted list from the article Gay icon to the Gay icons category, I have added this page to the category. I engaged in this effort as a "human script", adding everyone from the list to the category, bypassing the fact-checking stage. That is what I am relying on you to do. Please check the article Gay icon and make a judgment as to whether this person or group fits the category. By distributing this task from the regular editors of one article to the regular editors of several articles, I believe that the task of fact-checking this information can be expedited. Thank you very much. Philwelch 22:21, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Cat:Sex symbols

Do we have a WP:Citeation for this? Yeah yeah, I know "it's obvious". But someone thought Connie Chung was obvious, too. So, if we have a link per Wikipedia:Reliable source that names her as a sex symbol, we've satisfied WP:V. - brenneman(t)(c) 21:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

WHISTLE REGISTER?????

UMMM Y IS SHE ON THE WHISTLE REGISTER PAGE IS SHE A SINGER???.... NO She can probably screech in the register but she cannot control it...she doesnt belong here.

What do you mean she can't control it? In her movie with Mark Ruffalo, she ustains an open vowel up high as she "falls" out the window Antares33712 13:36, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
I have no idea what the "Whistle Register Page" is, but Witherspoon did her own singing in the film Walk the Line. -- MisterHand 19:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
The whistle register is a very hard, high range of notes. Starting from E6+. Singers like Shanice, Minnie Riperton, Mariah Carey, Rachelle Ferrell, Christina Aguilera, Betty Wright, Deniece Williams, and Chante Moore sing that high frequently. I never knew she sang but if she did, I'm not very sure if she sang high enough which not even 1st Sopranos have to sing that high. 67.181.94.96 02:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
She's notable in the category, because she can sing (thanks to the reviews in Walk the Line and secondly, she is just as notable as Raven Symone is (she never sings that high, but always squeakly speaks that high on her show) Antares33712 13:36, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Please refer to the whistle register article about specific details. While Witherspoon indeed can sing, there is no proof that she do so in the whistle register. If there is, then kindly provide it both here and in the article, pointing out exactly which notes above E6 she hits and the recording they can be found on. For now though, I'm deleting her categorization as a whistle register singer. --C-squared 06:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
I for one and tired of everyone taking out the whistle register category. In Just Like Heaven, Reese sustain a crystalline high note on an open vowel (no need for someone else to say it on another page, just LISTEN. If she did the EXACT same thing in some fluff pop song, no one would complain. Half of pop is fake, but we hate on her. 152.163.100.70 05:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
A high note is NOT the same as whistle register! If she's articulating a vowel then it's not a whistle!
Minnie Riperton could article vowels (even enunciate words) well above Soprano C so what's your point? Must we always use some scientific gadget to "prove" a high note. 152.163.100.70 01:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Reese Witherspoon is an actress who has no verifiable proof of whistle-singing ability. Please consider permanently removing this claim unless it can be backed up with a citation of multiple songs/recordings in which she demonstrates this ability. Thanks.

Agreed. I'm removing it as an inaccurate statement. The proofs provided on the discussion page are "original research," and not sufficient to maintain the designation. --Marysunshine 16:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Naturally Blonde???

"Like Marilyn Monroe, she is not a natural blonde but a brunette."[1]
The information above was removed from a previous version of the article (the revision dated 2005-09-05) by an user who claims she is "ash blonde" (see above, on this discussion page).

But Reese Witherspoon has dyed her hair for so long (and changed its color so many times) that she herself admits to be confused about her true hair color.[2]

How many hues do you see here already in her child pictures? But the earliest pictures here lends support that she was originally a brunette. (What is the likelihood that the mother of a 6-year-old natural ash blonde would dye her daughter's hair brown, anyway?) --68.126.197.24 08:55, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Reese has stated in various interviews that she is a natural blonde. She was questioned about her natural hair color on the Ellen DeGeneres Show in 2004 and she stated, "I'm naturally blonde. I dyed my hair brown to do this movie that I'm just finishing up- Walk the Line which is the Johnny Cash movie and I'm playing his wife, June Carter Cash."

Current Event

Why is this here? Arniep 20:54, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Inaccuracies

Forgive me, I'm new, so hopefully I'm handling this appropriately. I noticed 2 pretty glaring inaccuracies in this article. Witherspoon's first film is said to have been a made-for-TV project called "Hot Stuff" and was apparently directed by Elvis Presly... more than 15 years after he died. The project in question was actually directed by Diane Keaton and was aired under the name Wildflower. It was based on a book by Sara Flanagan called "Alice" and "Hot Stuff" was never even a working title for the project. We're also saying Witherspoon sued Star magazine in 1902 (it was in 2006). Juanitoelgato 06:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC) 

       further, If miss witherspoon was born in 1976, she would not have been 7 in 1991. So 
       was she fifteen when cast for Man in the Moon or is the date of that production wrong 
       or is her birthdate incorrect? and is it actually true that she "began her career in 
       local bikini shoots" before age seven?? i've noticed someone changed her first name 
       from kaitlin to laura to match the quick fact box/photo caption on the page. just 
       thought i'd double check - is it Laura or Kaitlin?Thesundaygap 17:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Good catches - according to the legal documents filed for both her divorce and the Star lawsuit her legal name is Laura Jeanne Reese Witherspoon, not Kaitlin. Her birthdate and the production dates for Man on the Moon are correct, she was 15 when she landed that role not 7. I made the change to the article. Juanitoelgato 05:58, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

deface?

Reese's husband is not Ryan Seacrest. And the bit about her being an ABUSIVE (caps) mother and employing whips all seem to have been some type of malicious editing?

LOL That's definitely slander but that's still funny. Just try to picture Reese Witherspoon whipping someone and you'll see what I mean. LOL Sion 11:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

South Carolina Move

Her publicist denied Reese moving to South Carolina. I am removing it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.98.210.129 (talk) 18:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC).


Seperate Divorce Section

There is already a section for Ms. Witherspoon's personal life, which is where the divorce between her & her ex-husband would be filed. I am combining the two sections. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.98.210.129 (talk) 21:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC).

Highest Paid Actress?

From what I hear, Nicole Kidman has been listed as Hollywood's highest paid actress, commanding $17 million a movie, while Reese is second. See the article here: http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory?id=2688827 -Lulu288 22:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

no nicole was like Julia Robert once was but resse is currently the highest payed actress [3] at the moment was she gets the most out of any other female actress —Preceding unsigned comment added by Veggiegirl (talk • contribs) 16:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Date of Birth

What did I tell you, Reese Witherspoon was born March 22, 1974. No you are guessing young, she is 33 today, so she was born on March 22, 1974. If you change this agian, you will be sorry, and I will teach you a stupid lesson. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.92.33.166 (talk • contribs)

WTF? Sion 11:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Sexy hairstyles

Reese Witherspoon is one of the actresses known for her sexy hairstyles. Where would I put something like that in? I have second and third party sources. MVillani1985 (talk) 09:59, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, could you share the sources here? Best, PeaceNT (talk) 15:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Song performer

Why does it say 'song performer' in the notes of her filmography for Just Like Heaven? She didn't perform any songs in the film. Maybe whoever added that was thinking of the intro song - a cover of The Cure's Just Like Heaven, which was sung by Katie Melua? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.100.154 (talk) 15:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey, check out http://www.variety.com/profiles/people/main/30620/Reese%20Witherspoon.html?dataSet=1 and http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/contributor/1800018812/filmography. :) PeaceNT (talk) 16:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Jesus, you get credited as a song performer for singing 2 lines from a broadway song during a conversation?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.100.154 (talk) 16:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Just like they get credited for a cameo appearance as well. PeaceNT (talk) 16:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


GA nomination on hold

Please leave a note on my talk page when you're done with this stuff - cheers, — Dihydrogen Monoxide 22:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

  • In the infobox, the occupations (actress, producer) could/should be wlinked
  • "Laura Jeanne Reese Witherspoon[1] (born 22 March 1976) is an Academy Award-winning American actress." - A few things. 1) The ref isn't really necessary - we'll trust you on the name. 2) This sentence is also a paragraph in itself - it should really be expanded. 3)As there are no other refs used in the lead it looks odd to have one here (again, remove it)
  • "Witherspoon is divorced from actor Ryan Phillippe, whom she married in 1999. They have two children, Ava and Deacon." - Another standalone sentence/paragraph - nothing else about her non-movie life worth mentioning in the lead?
  • The refs could really do with some work - most notably the author= and date= parameters on {{cite web}}. At the moment they're OK and you can get through GA with them, but you want them to be as good as possible, because it's articles like this one that have FA potential (that's right PeaceNT, you can have an FA!). So yeah, remember at one stage to add authors and dates to the refs.
  • Again, this isn't that huge at thing at this stage, but something that would be nice would be more use of the comma (,) instead of the full stop (.) (I'm saying this after reading para 2 of the Early life and education section). Merging a few of the sentences would help the article flow better and read easier.
  • "...in the CBS mini series "Return to Lonesome Dove"..." - Shouldn't the title be in italics here?
  • "for which her won the Young Artist Award Best Youth Actress co-starring" - Remove the "for", and try to make it a bit clearer what the name of the award was (use quotation marks etc.) as opposed to who presented it to here (YAA, right?)
  • "with Mick LaSalle commented" - change "commented" to "commeting"
  • Can you get an en translated version for ref 22 (run it through google translate/babelfish)? I'm not sure on policy in these areas though, but I think it'd be reasonable....
  • If Variety (magazine) is the publisher of a ref, you shouldn't include the (magazine) - just pipe the link so it reads "Variety". Same deal with NOW (magazine) --> “NOW”
  • "The next year, Witherspoon provided the voice of Serena in the animated film The Trumpet of the Swan, produced by Crest Animation Productions." - Title of film should be in italics
  • The early action section ends with discusssion of her difficulty in findig work, and the "Commercial and critical success” section starts with her in Legally Blonde. Is there any note of what changed - how she suddenly landed such a big job?
  • ”Witherspoon's performance earned her praise from the critics, as the press began referring to her as "the new Meg Ryan".[33]. Roger Ebert commented, "Witherspoon effortlessly animated this material with sunshine and quick wit"[34] and Salon.com noted that "she [Witherspoon] delineates Elle's character beautifully." [35]” - A few things :) 1) There shouldn’t be a full stop after ref 33. 2) There should be some sort of punctuation (comma etc.) under ref 34. 3) There shouldn’t be a space between the end of the quote and ref 35.
  • ”almost single-handedly." [36] As a result...” - Again, remove space between end of quote and ref. Same a bit later on at “she is its only attraction." [44]” and “about the first movie." [46]”
  • Ref 37 - About.com isn’t the most reliable source =/
  • ”helped the movie attract large audience.[42] [43]” - “audience” should be plural, and there shouldn’t be a space between the two refs
  • Ref 46 needs a publisher
  • ”and went on to grossed 90 million internationally.” - gross is singluar here - no ed on the end
  • ”adapted from the 19th century classic novel Vanity Fair” - titles of novels are in italics I think
  • ”it gave me much more to play with." she said.[50] [51]” - Remove space between refs
  • Refs 53 and 54 need publishers
  • ”I'd never sung professionally." [58]” - Space between ref and end of quote
  • Ref 59 contains a typo by the look of it
  • ”In 2006, Witherspoon was among a group of actresses” - 2006 shouldn’t be wlinked here
  • ”In 2007, Reese Witherspoon made...” - 2007 shouldn’t be wlinked, and “Reese” is not necessary
  • ”in the world by Time magazine [78]” - Need a full stop (.), and remember not to have a space between it and the ref
  • Refs 8 and 84 are the same
  • Ref 87 needs accessdate
  • ”"I think you're my birthday present."[88] [89]The pair got” - Fix spacing here
  • ”as a reason.[100][101]In her petition” - Fix spacing
  • ”In September 2007, Witherspoon spoke openly about the separation for the first time when she told Elle magazine that it was "a difficult and frightening experience for her." [107]” - Did she actually say that quote (including the “for her”)? Also fix spacing of ref and punctuation
  • Ref 117 needs publisher

Reviewed version: [4]

Good luck, — Dihydrogen Monoxide 22:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

That was really detailed. Thank you! :) I've made some improvements, hope I didn't miss anything. Haven't got round to completing the cite web templates with author and date yet, it would take quite some time. While FA is an appealing idea, the thought of an FAC is just scary, not really my aim at the moment. PeaceNT (talk) 15:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Passed. I seriously thing if you go for it, you'd have a good chance at FAC. And I know how much you want an FA :) — Dihydrogen Monoxide 08:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. I'll do some more work and will ask for your evaluation again about the article's chance at an FAC, when the time comes. PeaceNT (talk) 06:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Addendum - I just wrapped up a rather massive copyedit effort, after being invited to do so as an "uninvolved copyeditor" by PeaceNT. Most of my work consisted of adding helpful wiki-links, and perhaps some relatively minor rephrasing and wordsmithing of (what seemed to me) rough and/or reduntant patches. I also added some subsections to "break up" some rather lengthy monotonous sections. My hope is that this has significantly improved the "flow" and "professional feel" of the article; or at the very least has not significantly harmed the GA / FAC efforts. I know the history log shows a whole lot of edits by me (thank god nobody interrupted for most of the 9-odd hours it took to wade through it all). It does seem to me that the article may contain a little, forgive me for the lack of a better word, "fancruft" and excessive details - for example, her film character descriptions, plot summaries, editorial critical reviews, etc. I tried to tone things down a little but decided up front not to get too carried away with slicing away at sections and details that others obviously went to great effort to put together. If there is a consensus that there is a need to trim away some of the details, then I would go along with that. Otherwise I'll leave it alone and see how the GA / FA goes. Again - my hope is that perhaps my multitude of minor changes will help push it on. If not - please feel free to revert it all to restore it to the "pre-T-dot" mods by PeaceNT; I promise not take it very personally. --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 00:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. The edits were great. The sections looked rather short so I generalized the headers a bit. :)
Concerning the "fancruft", well, back in November I was quite satisfied with this simple version, in which the career section was basically a full report of her filmography. I was actually thinking about GAC when I looked at an FA (Angelina Jolie) and noticed said article did not only list her work with sentences like "that year she appeared in that film as ms.someone; then the next year ..." but also gave information on what the critics wrote about the her performances in each film and other commercial values of her movies. I've been following this kind of standard, with Angelina Jolie and Cilian Murphy serving as the main models.
I think the reviews shouldn't be a problem if they come from reputable sources. The plot descriptions are correspondingly necessary because the reviews of movies and actors only make sense when they are mentioned along with the movies' storylines and the like (i.e in-universe materials). Otherwise the readers would have to click on individual articles to see what the movies are about or what her characters are like, et cetera. Just trying to make sure the article in itself is comprehensive to everyone.
Anyway, something is definitely superfluous, since you as a reader think there're excessive details. Perhaps I'll trim down some text, as soon as my internet connection recovers its expected speed... PeaceNT (talk) 19:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Nahhh - don't bother. I did not go to the trouble of benchmarking the Witherspoon article against other notable, good, or featured articles on other Hollywood actors & actresses; as I don't typically study or work in that genre (with perhaps the notable exception of a very few HP-related BLP's, which are sometimes subject to random vandalism and vanity posts when the kids get bored). Anyway therefore my casual view on what constitutes a "good article" in this genre may not be particularly well grounded or especially valid. I would suggest we first let those that spend significant time working generally in Wikiprojects and Categories related to the Biographies of Actors and Actresses (etc.) decide by consensus what constitutes a well-written article, develop a benchmark standard, and then work towards bringing all such articles in the genre into conformation with that standard. What may seem like trivial fluff to "me" might be of critical importance to someone else, and I for one do not wish to deny that person the information they need. So again, let the involved consensus (and policies, guidelines and MOS) decide how much information is "just right" for this genre. This is why I recommended doing nothing unless there is a consensus to trim. Personally I would rather focus on whether the tone, tense, orderly flow, grammar, and spellings are correct, the "facts" and references are verifiable, the cross references and internal and external links are useful for further study and that sort of thing. More "housekeeping" than "content-creating" (or "dismissing" as it were). Thanks. --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 21:22, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Is this a typo?

"That same year, she made her TV acting debut by appearing in the cabal movie Wildflower"

Cabal movie? Is that some sort of conspiracy?

24.178.78.192 (talk) 15:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I assume it means "cable". It must refer to this: http://imdb.com/title/tt0103266/ thx1138 (talk) 09:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
And I see it's already been fixed in the article. thx1138 (talk) 09:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Vegetarianism (Veganism?)

We should certainly say something about Reese Witherspoon's vegetarianism (rumor is that she's vegan, so "Legally Blonde" was acted with a deep beleif in humane values and an ethics that includes animals. MaynardClark (talk) 06:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC) MaynardClark

Thanks! Got a reference? Unfortunately a "rumor ... that she's a vegan" is really not good enough for any encyclopedia that requires verifiability from reliable sourcing, especially when it comes to biographical material of living persons. The bit about her performance in Legally Blonde being animal friendly or whatever is also nice to know, but without a reputable source (perhaps a verifiable quote from Reese herself?) it constitutes synthesis - as forbidden original research. Please feel free to boldly post what you find, but please be sure provide the proper proof (perhaps a web link to where you found it) so anyone can check and verify it. Thanks again! --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 14:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I watched a clip on youtube of her on the Ellen DeGeneres show, and she was eating fried chicken. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.122.24 (talk) 14:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Jake -- aren't there reliable sources now?

Wonderful news on the FA for this article. But more to the point, I just wonder how long we are going to see photos of Reese and Jake everywhere together before their relationship can be added to this article rather than denied by it. At this moment, it is included in the Jake Gyllenhaal article with multiple sources. Take a look. --Melty girl (talk) 20:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, there certainly are- and I assure you, I have added the exact same reliable sources to Reese's article as I have to Jake's; in fact, the paragraph on the relationship in his article now originated in this article. On numerous occasions, I have also added details to the article on the relationship and the manner in which it was reported in the media. However, such additions are repeatedly removed from this article by people apparently frightened of jeopardizing FA status. Therefore, I give up, and they can add them whenever they deign to, if they remember all the details of the past year by then. Starswept (talk) 23:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)starswept

I don't dispute the reliability of the news provided by these sources, but whether or not Witherspoon and Gyllenhaal are having a romantic relationship is just the media's assumption. In case they aren't, it is not necessary for us to report the information. Also, saying "after a trip to Rome and the finalization of Witherspoon's divorce from Ryan Phillippe in October 2007, Gyllenhaal and Witherspoon became more open with their relationship." somehow implies that they no longer conceal their relationship from the public because Witherspoon is now divorced. Does it seem a bit like speculation? Regards, - PeaceNT (talk) 06:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, typically a man and a woman do not kiss and cuddle in public, hold hands at the airport, give each other piggyback rides, snuggle up on trips to Napa Valley, go for frequent hikes with the woman's children, attend a Halloween party together, go trick or treating with the woman's children, work out together, drive around Los Angeles giggling together, or make out at restaurants, all of which Reese and Jake have been photographed doing, unless they are involved in a romantic relationship. Why that continues to be denied by you and others on this page is beyond me. And the sentence does not imply that they are no longer concealing the relationship because Witherspoon is divorced- it merely states the fact that public photographs of Witherspoon and Gyllenhaal as a couple did not emerge until several days after Witherspoon's divorce was finalized. Whether the divorce was the reason for this is irrelevant; the fact of the matter is that the Rome photos and all subsequent photos of the couple WERE taken and released only after the divorce (with the exception of one set of photos of them driving together on August 31, 2007). That is a matter of chronology. Starswept (talk) 03:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)starswept

Middle Class?

Should it be stated that she was born into a "middle class" family? Sure, she's got more money now, but her dad was a physician, her mother a college professor? Maybe "upper middle class"?66.72.215.225 (talk) 17:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi. :) The article says "middle-class family" because there is a reliable source confirming the info, please check http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/article737573.ece?token=null&offset=12 (published by The Times). :) Best regards, --PeaceNT (talk) 12:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

T.O.C.

What happened to the table of contents on this discussion page? I can't see it. I don't see a "__NOTOC__" in the source code. Should we add a "__FORCETOC__" "magic word" to work around some bug?
--Jerome Potts (talk) 03:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The WikiProject Biography template is the problem. Removing it restores the TOC. Raul654 (talk) 04:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Indeed it is, thank you. But you removed the "talkheader" template instead, and that didn't fix our pbm; so i put it back. If you removed it for a separate reason, go right ahead and do it again, as i'm supposing you erred. --Jerome Potts (talk) 11:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
The talkheader template is not supposed to be used on every talk page - it's for controversial pages only (and frankly, I'd like to delete the damn thing entirely). Raul654 (talk) 22:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Clarification for discussion added here. Viriditas (talk) 09:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

First sentence

I removed "Academy Award-winning" from the first sentence because the awards are repeated a few sentences later. See also WT:Neutral point of view/Archive 29#POV in first sentence?. You wouldn't say "Carmen Electra is a Razzie award winning actress" or "Paris Hilton is a DUI-charged celebrity". The first sentence should simply say who or what the subject is. Praise, criticism, awards etc. go after. Why is there such a need to introduce someone as "award-winning" when it's mentioned again a few sentences later? Spellcast (talk) 14:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Recently I mentioned her Oscar win in the very first sentence but it has been removed twice. The first time it was argued that it is repeated in the second paragraph. The second time the user argued that the Oscar win "shouldn't come before the fact that she is an actress". In my opinion the second paragraph specifies her win; it tells the reader the film for which she won, among other things. I think that's not mere repetition. In the first paragraph the info serves as an introduction.
And I think that it's irrelevant whether one mentions her win first or the fact that she is an actress. You might as well say that her nationality should not be mentioned before her profession. In fact, if you take a look at other actresses (or actors) that won an Academy Award (see e. g. Diane Keaton, Sophia Loren, Julia Roberts, Shirley MacLaine, to name only a few) you will see that the Oscar is always mentioned in the first paragraph. This particular award is not an ordinary one (it's not the Razzie or anything else), it is the most coveted film award worldwide and generally, major film awards are mentioned in the first sentence (or at least in the second one). Winning the Oscar is something special since it is the most prestigious film award. Dutzi (talk) 19:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
I first saw this "award-winning" issue at Christina Aguilera (link, link). It was discussed whether "Grammy-winning" should be in the intro. WP:LS says "The first paragraph should begin with a straightforward, declarative sentence. Readers... should immediately find the answer to 'What is it?' or 'Who is he/she?'." Winning awards is something actors have done, but it's not what defines them. Witherspoon is an actress first and foremost and she was notable long before she won an Oscar.
See also WP:NPoV#Fairness of tone: "Even when a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinion, an article can still radiate an implied stance through either selection of which facts to present, or more subtly their organization." "Academy-winning" in the first sentence implies a positive PoV just like "Razzie-winning" implies negative connotations. It's a non sequitur to say it's ok to put it in because other articles do. It's what you find in press releases or film trailers rather than a neutral enecylopedia. An Oscar is a prestigious award and of course it should be mentioned, but to introduce subjects that way implies bias. Spellcast (talk) 05:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Image licenses

While the first two images seem ok, the third and fourth image of this article are quite clearly copyright infringements, imho. Even though both had been published under a Creative Commons license on Flickr, they both appear to have been taken by professional photographers on the red carpet, and were apparently illicitly uploaded and mislabeled on Flickr. Both are only available in small resolutions (often a clear sign of pictures simply taken from somewhere on the internet), and have already been deleted on Flckr, and I'm afraid that should also happen with them on Commons. Sloan21 (talk) 17:53, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I've nominated both for deletion on Commons.-Wafulz (talk) 03:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protection

Can an admin please semi-protect this artcle? I am a afraid that vandalism by unregistered users always shoots up on featured article, and this article is no exception. This article is losing quality and it is because of vandalism by unregistered users, and the only way to fix this and restore the article to the way it was yesterday is to semi-protect the article. Daniel Chiswick (talk) 02:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Per the protection policy, articles on the main page are not protected except in cases of extreme vandalism and then only for an extremely limited time. -MBK004 02:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Well I would say that it is extreme, I mean this page has been vandalized almost non-stop since yesterday. Daniel Chiswick (talk) 03:12, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

But now it is off the main page, and the page itself hasn't been edited since it was up there. and I don't expect the vandals to be here in force now. We don't protect after the fact, and if need be we can restore the page to what it was before it went up on the main page. -MBK004 03:15, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay well I just took the liberty of restoring the article to the way it was yesterday when it was first featured, and I hope the vandalism stops. Daniel Chiswick (talk) 03:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Albert Pyun?

The following passage from the opening paragraph reads like vandalism to me, but I'll simply quote it here and explain why I have problems with it.

growing up watching the films of Albert Pyun, her favorite filmmaker. Films like Kickboxer, Brain Smasher: A Love Story and Doll Man acknowledgely are some of the films Reese love the most in life

Here are my problems with it:

  1. No sources, yet the writer claims that the films listed are "acknowledgely" (sic) her favorites.
  2. Pyun is a maker of B-movies using third-rate actors that are typically released direct-to-video. It seems highly unlikely that Witherspoon, an A-list actress with some talent, would cite his work as her inspiration to become such an actress.
  3. The film titles are not in proper format, i.e., they are not italicized or linked to their relevant articles.
  4. "Acknowledgely" is not a word.
  5. "are some of the films Reese love the most" displays a rather blatant verb-object-number disagreement.

In sum, the passage sounds unlikely and begs for a source citation, and needs some copyediting if it is to be kept. 71.200.140.35 (talk) 13:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


Divorce and Community Property

I edited the divorce section as relates to their division of property under California law. Phillippe wasn't entitled to half of all Witherspoon's assets, only those gained with labor during the marriage. Similarly, Witherspoon would have been entitled to half of all the assets Phillippe earned during the marriage. Simply saying "half of Witherspoon's assets" is not only simplistic, but a gross misstatement of the law. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.109.233.239 (talk) 09:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Fear

Fear was a 1996 movie, not a 1998 movie? Why does this article state otherwise? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.188.177.195 (talk) 01:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

"Scottish-Americans"

Is there any justification for listing her as such? The article itself admits that there is no evidence that she is one, so surely this should be removed pending verification? Shiresman (talk) 01:20, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I've removed Category:Scottish-Americans and also Category:Americans of Scottish descent. You're right. They are unverifiable as of now. --PeaceNT (talk) 07:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Lead

established herself as one of Hollywood's top actresses in recent years

Wikipedia articles should generally avoid POV and time-sensitive statements, especially in the lead section. Is this statement necessary? It would be more encyclopedic to just state, "Reese Witherspoon, is an American actress and film producer." Viriditas (talk) 10:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Do what is needed. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Point mooted. Article changed per suggestion. --Yachtsman1 (talk) 16:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, a lead should reflect the content of the article and that Witherspoon became one of the top actresses is supported by content of the article, which is noted in a hidden note in the article. The refernce to having "established herself as one of Hollywood's top actresses" is not POV, it is sourced. The only thing that really needs to be edited is the "in recent years". Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Can you provide the source here, to review? Just because something is sourced doesn't automatically qualify it for inclusion. What does it mean to be "one of Hollywood's top actresses"? On Wikipedia, we avoid peacock terms. See also: words and phrases to watch out for. You'll see "top" listed there. If she's won multiple awards, then we say that. If she's received special recognition for her acting, then we write that. Saying that she's "one of Hollywood's top actresses" is meaningless. For the record, it did not appear in the lead section when it became a featured article. Previously, the lead did say that she was one of the highest-paid female Hollywood actors. Viriditas (talk) 09:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Point mooted. Article changed per suggestion. Thank you.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 22:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Wicked (film remake)

Regarding the insert about Witherspoon playing "Glinda" in 2010 in the movie adapation of the Broadway hit Wicked, I've been trying to source this because it is also mentioned in the Wicked as musical article. Couldn't find anything yet that would pass as recent and reliable, so I left Fact templates on the musical's page such as {{Fact|date=August 2009|I tried to source all this but found nothing at the Universal Pictures website nor any other possible source.}}
 —  .`^) Paine Ellsworthdiss`cuss (^`.  04:36, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

That seems a prudent choice. I looked and couldn't verify it either. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:03, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Reese and Jake

This has been bugging me for a while now. Under her personal information, it's stated that it was officially stated that the couple was still together. While that was true at the time, we later learned that there was indeed a break up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marymoss (talk • contribs) 19:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I tried editing this but someone changed it back. It's obvious that Reese & Jake have broken up. Otherwise, People Mag's stories about her and her new boyfriend insiniute that she's cheating on Jake and we know that's not the case. However, if you are going to use People as a reliable source saying that they are still together, that implies that the stories about her being shown with Jim Toth are correct. I don't think it's right to have disinformation on the site. Eventually, you'll hve to state that they have broken up.

(talk • contribs) 14:28, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that you simply removed sourced content without trying to reword it and added a short statement that was in no way whatsoever sourced. If People can support that they were together, it certainly can also source that they have split up. That has been the problem with this event all along. No one bothers to back up his or her change with reliable sources. Provide that and it likely won't be reverted. We can't add something that you know but is not sourced. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:41, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

thanks for the reponse. I'm totally lost on how to do this. The main problem is People magazine never finished the story. They say that there is no split and then jump ahead to Reese's new boyfriend. I did find a source and was going to add it but 1) I didn't know if it was permitted and more importanty, 2) I didn't know how. Here is the source:

http://www.accesshollywood.com/reese-witherspoon-and-jake-gyllenhaal-split_article_26796 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marymoss (talk • contribs) 20:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, Access Hollywood is sort of gossipy, but unless someone else challenges it, it's okay. To use it, use this template and fill in the blanks: {Cite web |last= |first= |coauthors= |title= |publisher=[[Access Hollywood]] |date= |url=http://www.accesshollywood.com/reese-witherspoon-and-jake-gyllenhaal-split_article_26796 |accessdate=2010-03-05}}</ref>, where last and first are the authors names and the date of the article is what day the publisher posted it. I think it's better to show you what to use than to do it myself. That way, you can word it how you want. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:23, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Still not sure if I understand what you wrote. It takes me a while to understand code. I'll try it later and hopefully won't mess it up. However, I don't know who wrote the article. It's from US Weekly, I found it on line and even remember reading it in paper copy but the on-line version doesn't say who wrote the article and I really don't want to have to go to the library to find a copy So what do I do?.--- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.82.162.10 (talk) 18:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Why is it gone? I had a source and everything and my edit is gone. Do you know how long it took for me to figure out how to do that? --- marymoss

I removed it as the link did not work. All you got was a redirect to the main page. As for the experimenting, see your talk page. Thanks. Nymf hideliho! 18:46, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I give up. I keep trying and trying. I get it and I can't get the formatting right. Maybe someone else will fix it whenever Jake or Reese is seriously dating again. Never mind. Some very kind person fixed it while I was in tehe middle of trying to fix what I messed up. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marymoss (talk • contribs) 19:26, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Awkward

The way this article just jumps into her movies in the second sentence is quite awkward, especially because of the way it's written. It's like, "Here's her name, oh and in 1998 she starred in three movies." (Obviously, this isn't verbatim, but that's what the reader comes away with). It's Weird. But I'm not a big enough fan of hers to fix it. Cbflagginc (talk) 17:54, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Personal life section

I think the personal life section is a bit awkward as it is organized currently. In its present state, the Jake relationship sits under the sub-section entitled "Separation and Divorce". Personally, I don't think we need these sub-headings in the personal life section anyway. Her personal life is pretty self-contained, so it can be easily presented in one section without any divisions. Otherwise, we need a new sub-section for the Jake and post-Jake stuff (something like "relationships" or similar). but I basically propose that we get rid of the sub-sections in the Personal life section. Thoughts? Hutch y2k (talk) 20:46, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Relationship with Jim Toth

I have added information regarding Reese’s alleged relationship with Jim Toth to the article. It has now been widely reported in many media outlets since February, and the pair have been photographed together numerous times. I made sure to phrase the addition such that it recognizes that Witherspoon has not personally confirmed the relationship, but that it has been widely reported/photographed. All of the sources are from People, except two that are from Popsugar but ONLY because they provide photos that back up claims made in the People stories (i.e. there is a People story about Witherspoon & Toth going to an Easter service, but it doesn’t provide photos; the photos of the event in question are, however, provided by the Popsugar link). Sorry to go into such excruciating detail, but I know adding information on relationships tends to be very contentious so I thought I’d cover my bases (plus using Popsugar as a source requires some explanation!). Let me know of any issues. Starswept (talk) 04:07, 25 April 2010 (UTC)starswept

First, the article you alleged that stated she was dating was merely speculation, it asked a question, it didn't confirm it. Next sticking a string of photographs doesn't confirm anything and the popsugar site isn't cnsidered reliable, as I recently told another new editor who tried to use the links as reference (fancy that?). Not acceptable and basically, Wikipedia has declined to include speculative content that alleges two people are dating. It's gossip and we don't do that. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:07, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Toth's occupation

When I first edited the article to include Toth, I wrote "At the time, Toth was a talent agent working for the Creative Artists Agency, which represents Witherspoon; however, in September 2010, he was promoted to become one of the agency’s two heads of motion picture talent", since in my mind I figured once promoted to head of motion picture talent he probably would no longer be simply working as an agent. However, a number of media sources continue to report him as being an agent, and in a recent interview Ryan Phillippe noted that "Reese's fiance is Matthew's McConaughey's agent", in the present tense. So - does anyone more familiar with agencies like CAA know if Toth would continue to act as an agent in addition to being head? It's not a big deal of course, but if that's the case I'd prefer to change the phrasing in the interest of accuracy and also because I've noticed a few media sources copying what's written here currently. Starswept (talk) 14:14, 16 March 2011 (UTC)starswept

Unmarked crosswalk???

A recent addition to the article begins:

"On September 7, 2011, Witherspoon was struck by a car at an unmarked crosswalk."

But at least in the U.S., there is no such thing as an unmarked crosswalk. That is because, by definition, a (U.S.) crosswalk is a *marked* path for crossing a street. Since I don't know anything about this minor accident, I am not the one to fix it.Daqu (talk) 09:01, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Signersbuff, 16 September 2011

Current text is incorrect. Current text reads Early life and education

Witherspoon was born at the former Southern Baptist Hospital (now the Ochsner Baptist Medical Center) in New Orleans, Louisiana, where her parents were living while her father was a student at Tulane University medical school.[1][2] Her father, John Witherspoon, is a Georgia-born otolaryngologist who previously served as a lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Army reserves.[3][4] Her mother, Betty (née Reese), is from Harriman, Tennessee, has a Ph.D. in pediatric nursing and works as a professor of nursing at Vanderbilt University.[4][5] Witherspoon has ancestry from the Declaration of Independence, as her Scottish-born ancestor John Witherspoon, signed United States Declaration of Independence.[6][7] ADD (this claim has never been verified)

Backgroud for the editor.

Reese is NOT a descendant of John Witherspoon, or of his brother (from a genealogical perspective, if she were descended from John's brother, she would be related to, but not descended from), the Signer. Her father is working to establish what the connection is, if any between John the Signer, and a John Witherspoon in her ancestry. We have been in discussion with her father about this subject. He has been working with a Scottish genealogist to get to the correct family information.

There was a hugh migration of Scotsmen (estimated at 250,000) to this country in the 1720-1750 period, and most of this migration ended up in the southern colonies of North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia. There were many Witherspoons in this migration. John Witherspoon, the Signer, came to New Jersey in 1768. His descendants are documented in the genealogical reference book, Descendants of the Signers of the Declaration of Independence, Vol 3, 2nd Edition, Pyne, Picton Press, Rockport, ME. Until recently, the Society of the Descendants of the Signers of the Declaration of Independence (DSDI www.dsdi1776.com) have maintained that there was only one male Witherspoon left in the lineage from the Signer. This individual is in his 70's now and has no children. This summer we found that to be in error; an unknown line from David Witherspoon did emerge with sufficient documentation. If Reese is a descendant of the Signer, she too, would come down from David Witherspoon (He was the only one of The Signer's sons to survie and have family, all other descendants are from his girls by two wives). So far Reese's family has submitted no credible genealogical documentation of a connection to the Signer.

This entry has been editied out several times, but just keeps on coming back, rather like the engergizer bunny.

If you have nay questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at (Redacted).

Signersbuff (talk) 17:32, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Bility (talk) 19:49, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Agree with Bility, we need sources for your assertions. --BweeB (talk) 20:01, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Removal of sourced quotes in Personal life section

On October 30, 2011, Bigweeboy completed 3 edits listed as "trim", with the last one saying "trim text - Wiki is not a tabloid". While some of the trimming done was very welcome and helped make the article more succinct, it also involved removing sourced quotes (from Witherspoon) in the Personal Life section relating to Witherspoon's marriage to Phillippe and marriage to Toth. For example, this entire section was removed: "By 2005, in response to news reports of Witherspoon and Phillippe receiving marriage counseling, Witherspoon stated, "We've done that in the past, and it's always struck me as odd that people grabbed onto that story and made it sound so negative."[1] In December 2005, she said on The Oprah Winfrey Show, "In what capacity is working on yourself or your marriage a bad thing? What marriage isn't a journey? ... Nobody's perfect ... We all have our own set of problems."[1][2]". The inclusion of these kinds of quotes helped to make this a Featured Article, so I am confused as to why they have been removed. Is there consensus for these deletions of sourced material? It would be one thing if the quotes that were deleted came from anonymous sources or friends in tabloids, but they came from Witherspoon herself in various interviews. Starswept (talk) 18:11, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Reese-witherspoon.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Reese-witherspoon.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Reese-witherspoon.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 09:50, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Ten state fair

I do not think this-At age eleven she took first place in the Ten-State Talent Fair is correct. I live in Nashville Tennessee and there is no such thing as a Ten state fair. I think maybe it is supposed to be Tn state fair or Tenn state fair or even Tennesssee state fair. I went to the citation provided and the biography is from a UK tabloid like site. That is another reason I do not think it is correct,because the source is from the UK and maybe whomever wrote the biography in the UK did not understand the Tn or Tenn is a abbreviation of Tennessee.--BeckiGreen (talk) 23:48, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Catholic or Episcopalian?

Was she raised Catholic or Episcopalian? Or are her parents Catholics, and she was raised Episcopalian? Some sources state her parents are Catholics(http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/features/reese-witherspoon-face-to-face-with-hollywoods-golden-girl-7417963.html http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/woman/parenting/article2356641.ece), and some state they are Episcopalians(http://www.parade.com/celebrity/2008/11/reese-witherspoon.html). Some sources also claim that she attends the mass service at the Catholic Church(http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1380253/Reese-Witherspoon-smiles-takes-family-Easter-church-service.html). What is the deal here, any thoughts?--Eversman (talk) 23:07, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Another picture

For future reference, here's another picture. I don't think this page needs more than 2 pictures, (it's the only picture for Interview Magazine right now) but it might be useful later. [[:Image:Dec_2005_Cover_Interview_Magazine.gif|right|thumb|Reese Witherspoon was among the interview subjects in Interview's December 2005 issue]]

Why does this page get delted all the time

http://reesewitherspoonvideos.blogspot.com/ I keep trying to add this web and it's get deleted who keeps doing this an why. If so .

Reese rumor: old news

Since both Reese and Jake repedatly said they arent's dating, I deleted the article about that.retard.

New Info for Reese.

I don't understand why my edits of recent to this page have been reverted. I didn't use vandalism at all. All I did was give new info on films that she's going to produce and star in. I also deleted info regarding Water For Elephants and This Means War because they seem out of place for this page and should be in their respective pages about those films. 01:54, 29 July 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.165.92.9 (talk) 15:34, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I had no problem with you adding new information on upcoming films and the production company change - thank you for that. However, going in and deleting properly cited content and references without prior discussion or at least an explanation more enlightening than "unnecessary" should be avoided. I also disagree with your assertion that the information you deleted belongs solely on the film's page. For example, the quote from the NY Times is not something that would belong on the film's page at all - it directly pertains to Witherspoon's acting and box office draw, and has little to do with the film - I will therefore restore that quote (which was properly sourced, to a very reputable paper) to the article. Also, by deleting the reference belonging to that quote, this made the remaining statement re. the film's weekend sales become unsourced information. The same occurred when you deleted the Rotten Tomatoes source for Water for Elephants. Also, while keeping the information you added, I will create proper reference tags for them as raw URLs are insufficient. Hope this all makes sense. Starswept (talk) 02:55, 30 July 2012 (UTC)Starswept

comma required

there is a comma REQUIRED after "Legally Blonde" in the introduction. Clause, coordination conjunction clause. This is too big a star for shitty mechanics <-- grammar wise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jphn37 (talk • contribs) 16:21, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Reese Witherspoon/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

==Importance==

High importance. Witherspoon is an internationally known Academy Award-winning actress, and was raised and educated in Tennessee.

==Quality==

The article is currently listed as FA-class.

Last edited at 19:42, 24 August 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 15:39, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 14 external links on Reese Witherspoon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:17, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

"2013 arrest" section name

Shouldn't this section be named something like "2013 conviction for disorderly conduct"? The conviction is the final resolution of the case, not the arrest.--130.65.109.103 (talk) 00:26, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Or maybe even the long-ish "2013 arrest and convictions for disorderly conduct". What she said during the arrest is more notable than what she ultimately plead, but labeling it just "... arrest" makes it sound like she got off with a warming.--130.65.109.103 (talk) 00:37, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Reese Witherspoon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:00, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

2013 arrest

It's not just the section name that is troubling -- the section itself needs to go. I expect some resistance; this being a Featured Article (!!!) where every last inconsequential incident in her life has to be scrupulously documented.

Firstly, the loong section focuses on Witherspoon's fella. Secondly, Reese herself got fined $213 -- assuming we can trust Us Weekly (clue, we can't) -- did the incident affect her career? No. It is massively undue. Thirdly, it is rather poorly sourced for a contentious incident.

Early in the morning of April 19, 2013, while in Atlanta, Georgia filming The Good Lie, Witherspoon and Toth were pulled over after the car in which they were traveling was seen weaving across a double line on Peachtree Street.[3] Toth, who was driving, was found to have a blood alcohol level of 0.139 and was arrested and charged with driving under the influence and failing to maintain a lane.[3] Witherspoon was arrested and charged with disorderly conduct for disobeying the arresting officer's instructions to remain in the vehicle and arguing with him, saying that she did not believe he was a real police officer and asking if he knew who she was.[3][4] The couple were released on bond at 3:30 AM the same day.[5] Witherspoon was able to attend the New York premiere of her film Mud on April 21, 2013,[6] and she issued an apology later that night, stating that she had "clearly had one drink too many" and was "deeply embarrassed about the things I said... I was disrespectful to the officer who was just doing his job. I have nothing but respect for the police and I’m very sorry for my behavior."[7] When Witherspoon's lawyer and her husband appeared in court on May 2, Toth pleaded guilty and was ordered to complete 40 hours of community service, an alcohol-education program, and one year of probation; Witherspoon pleaded no contest and was fined $213.[8]

I have removed the quoted section because, i believe it is not compliant with our BLP rules. If anyone has a problem with this, may I suggest that, rather than reverting, they take the matter up at BLP noticeboard. Cheers. --Hillbillyholiday talk 19:17, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

You've been editing as long as you have and you don't know WP policy? When I said, "Discuss first", I didn't mean: just make a comment and remove it again. There has been no discussion. You have violated WP:3RR, which is an easy way to get blocked. I could report you. It is you who should take it to WP:BLP/N, if discussion doesn't work for you. My problem isn't you removing the section, it's that you have gone against procedure and have been causing disruptive revert warring. —Musdan77 (talk) 20:16, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
And you think, with two reverts under your belt, you are not edit-warring? My problem isn't you removing the section, it's that you have gone against procedure and have been causing disruptive revert warring. That's no excuse for your edit-warring. Remember: per 3RR "Do not edit-war even if you think you are right". You can't invoke procedure to justify your own edit-warring, especially if, as you say, you don't have a problem with the actual removal of the section; this makes your removal of the section, on procedural grounds, WP:POINTy, even if we ignore the edit-warring dimension. Dr. K. 21:02, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Btw, I agree with HH that this is WP:UNDUE and should be removed. Dr. K. 20:34, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Dr. K, I think you are very confused (and probably biased). I was not the one making disruptive edits per BRD. Hillbillyholiday boldly removed a section that had been in the article for two and half years (where have you 2 been?). It was reverted. He removes it again (still no good explanation or discussion). A second editor reverts it. Again, going against BRD, he removes it. Then a third editor (me) reverts, saying "Discuss first". I should have given a link to BRD, but after seeing how much experience the editor had, I figured he already knew about that. Then, for the 3rd time in 24 hours (3RR) he reverts, with still no discussion. He makes a comment on the talk page. Then, following what it says at WP:BRD, which says to leave the article in the condition it was in before the Bold edit was made while discussion is going on, I restore it to status quo. So, I did follow BRD, while Hillbillyholiday and you did not. Still no one has given any reasoning for removal. —Musdan77 (talk) 19:29, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
@Musdan77: Dr.K. I think you are very confused (and probably biased). First, let me start by reminding you of WP:CIV, and WP:NPA. Second, don't call people biased and confused when you don't recall what you said. I remind you: you said: My problem isn't you removing the section, it's that you have gone against procedure and have been causing disruptive revert warring. I took the liberty of bolding it this time so you can't tell me that you didn't see it. Now, when you say My problem isn't you removing the section what do you think that means? It obviously means that you have no problem with Hillbillyholiday's removal of the section. You then continue: it's that you have gone against procedure and have been causing disruptive revert warring. So that means that you removed the section because you objected to the procedure HBH was following. It is rather obvious that you edit-warred and removed the section because you had a procedural objection, not actual content-based objection which you never discussed. Now, if you don't understand what you are writing, that's ok. It happens. But don't attack people as being biased and very confused because you don't understand what you write about. Such tactics are both violations of civility and NPA and also downright unfair to the editor you are attacking who doesn't have to pay for your lack of understanding. And make no mistake: You reverted twice in less than 3 hours. Two reverts in less than 3 hours is quite fast-paced edit-warring. You were edit-warring at a rapid rate and quoting BRD won't save you from that. You should read 3RR more thoroughly lest next time you make the same mistake and get reported and risk getting blocked. Remember: You don't have to actually break the 3 revert rule to get blocked. Quote from policy: Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit warring with or without 3RR being breached. Edit-warring while quoting BRD is still edit-warring and it won't save you from being reported. Dr. K. 20:10, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
You like to write as if you know everything, but your actions say different. I don't see how anything that I wrote would constitute incivility, and certainly not attacking, while you made false accusations against me (twice now). Of course I know what I wrote. In fact, I thought about repeating it. No, it does not "obviously" mean that I had "no problem with Hillbillyholiday's removal". That is not what I said or meant. As I explained, my second edit was not a revert, but a restoration -- which you violated by not following BRD. And you still have not said anything about why you think it should be removed (which is the subject of this talk section). You appear to show bias because you scold an editor who was following the rules, yet say nothing to the editor who wasn't. --Musdan77 (talk) 21:20, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
@Musdan77: As I explained, my second edit was not a revert, but a restoration Nope. Read the policy again: An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. HBH reverted you and then you reverted HBH. There is no way around that. You can use all the euphemisms you like but your edit was not a "restoration". It was a revert. The sooner you accept that, the better your chances of not repeating this mistake again. As far as the rest of your comments please check WP:AVOIDYOU. And you still have not said anything about why you think it should be removed. But I did. Didn't you see my comment? I could easily call you confused or careless but that's just not my style. I will actually try to help you: Check above and you will see that I said I agree with HBH. Do you see that comment? Now please read what HBH wrote above, or haven't you seen it yet? And I still think you do not object to the section being removed. You said so yourself: My problem isn't you removing the section Remember? Dr. K. 21:55, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
You just keep repeating things and now repeatedly ask condescending questions. Do you really think that's being helpful - and civil? Your "style" is not helping us here. I have read everything and you have not given your case, other than give a shortcut link (after a "btw"). Instead of explaining your removal, you just pounced on me, when all I was doing was following the rules. And did you read WP:AVOIDYOU - where it says, "The appropriate response to an inflammatory statement is to address the issues of content rather than to accuse the other person of violating this policy"? --Musdan77 (talk) 22:43, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

And did you read WP:AVOIDYOU - where it says, The appropriate response to an inflammatory statement... I am glad that at least you admit that you made an inflammatory statement. Now that you admit it, the next step is to apologise for making it instead of being condescending and telling me how to respond to your inflammatory statement. Dr. K. 22:59, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Your "style" is not helping us here. I have read everything and you have not given your case, other than give a shortcut link (after a "btw"). My style? Trying to give you advice not to edit-war only to get PAs in return? I have not given my case? What in my reply above Btw, I agree with HH that this is WP:UNDUE and should be removed. did you not understand? which coupled with your comment My problem isn't you removing the section makes this discussion over and done. Kindly drop the subject. Thanks. Dr. K. 10:39, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Wow, you act as if you (and Hillbillyholiday) have done nothing wrong here. Need I remind you that you started this -- by jumping on me without a valid reason, accusing me of something, then when I tell you that you're wrong, you keep accusing me of things -- and basically calling me a liar. If that's not attacking, a don't know what is. I have not admitted to anything, but it's time that you admit to what you've done wrong. You talk like someone with little experience, instead of someone who should know better. No, you have still not given an explanation as to why you think that WP:UNDUE applies. Sure, you're "done", because the article is the way you want it -- because you didn't follow correct procedure. Consensus was found for it for over 2 years, and in order to remove it, you would need to find consensus through discussion (before it's removed), which is not what you wrote. That was just an incidental added comment. Either you didn't know the way to do it (which is hard to believe) or you knew and just didn't give a crap. Well, I really don't like being accused of things I didn't do, and I don't back down when I am falsely accused, but I'm tired of playing your games. —Musdan77 (talk) 00:42, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Need I remind you that you started this -- by jumping on me without a valid reason, accusing me of something, then when I tell you that you're wrong, you keep accusing me of things -- and basically calling me a liar. If that's not attacking, a don't know what is. You create all these false statements just because I told you that you were edit-warring and that BRD won't save you from violating 3RR. You exhibit a far-worse case of WP:IDHT than I could ever imagine. As far as you arguing about the removal of the section, even after my repeated explanations, I copy and paste one of my replies from above:

Now, when you say My problem isn't you removing the section what do you think that means? It obviously means that you have no problem with Hillbillyholiday's removal of the section.

Do you know why I needed to copy-paste my answer to you? I think you do only too well. If you don't, here is the hint: Just click here for the answer.
I can't waste my time further to reply to your refusal to drop the stick, PAs and rants so this is my last post here. Given your persistence so far, I am fairly confident that you will not stop and that you will want to have the last word, which you can obviously have. Just don't expect me to reply to your further PAs. In closing, I will just leave this advice for you: Your understanding of BRD and edit-warring is very flawed and your propensity for personal attacks to cover your deficiency in understanding 3RR is disruptive. You should also accept responsibility for your own statements and you should not make people repeat things to you by copypasting them again and again, only for you to ignore them completely. The sooner you realise this disruption you cause the better it will be for you. But I will not hold my breath. Dr. K. 01:00, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
I will try not to repeat myself (after all, that didn't do any good before), but as I said, I don't back down to potentially defaming false accusations hurled at me, and have to defend myself by revealing the truth. No matter how many times I explain my position and show how wrong you have been, it just doesn't sink in. You refuse to listen to reason. I didn't "make" you do anything. In fact, I said (or implied) that you should stop all the completely nonsensical repetition. If my understanding of BRD is so flawed, why wouldn't you explain how? It's just like you wouldn't explain why you think the section should be removed. You never want to have a constructive discussion on pertinent policy; you just want to talk about off-topic frivolous things and make accusations. It's so ridiculous. I've not encountered anything quite like this in my seven years as editor. —Musdan77 (talk) 20:06, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
I have no idea why this section keeps getting deleted. It wasn't "inconsequential". It was a very public moment for her that made headline news. A moment she has yet to fully recover one, given she is still lambasted for her actions during the event. This needs to be brought back to the main page. It can't be erased like that.—HenryBarnill (talk) 13:08, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b Thomas, Karen (2006-11-08). "Reese Witherspoon, Ryan Phillippe separate". USA Today. Retrieved 2007-10-26.
  2. ^ "Reese Witherspoon on the benefits of therapy". Talentdevelop.com. 2005-12-10. Retrieved 2006-10-30.
  3. ^ a b c Johnson, Ted (April 21, 2013). "Reese Witherspoon and Agent Husband Arrested in DUI Incident (EXCLUSIVE)". Variety. Retrieved April 21, 2013.
  4. ^ Fleeman, Mike (May 2, 2013). "Reese Witherspoon Arrest Videos Hit the Internet". People. Retrieved May 2, 2013.
  5. ^ Lee, Youyoung (April 21, 2013). "Reese Witherspoon Arrested: Actress, Husband Jim Toth Arrested And Jailed For DUI Incident (REPORT)". Huffingtonpost.com. Retrieved April 21, 2013.
  6. ^ Takeda, Allison (April 21, 2013). "Reese Witherspoon Smiles on First Red Carpet After Arrest: Picture". Us Weekly. Retrieved April 21, 2013.
  7. ^ Nashawaty, Chris (April 22, 2013). "Reese Witherspoon issues statement – apology – about her arrest". Entertainment Weekly. Retrieved April 22, 2013.
  8. ^ Ravitz, Justin (May 2, 2013). "Reese Witherspoon Pleads No Contest to Disorderly Conduct, Jim Toth Pleads Guilty to DUI". Retrieved May 2, 2013.

Two breakthrough roles and one breakout roles

Hi, I'm not an expert. But this struck me as weird. It sounds like the same thing to me. Could probably use some editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.115.140.139 (talk) 21:24, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

A breakout role would be one that makes you a known and respected actor for the first time. Breakthrough roles would be when you breakthrough to the next level of a career, such as winning an Oscar. Professor Keiner (talk) 08:48, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

6+ songs recorded, 2 movie soundtracks, plus a song recorded w michael buble...

But not a singer. Why? Professor Keiner (talk) 08:56, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

She's primarily an actress, not a singer. She's never released an album and she's only sang for movies and has 1 duet, which doesn't mean she has a singing career.Henry Barnill (talk) 03:01, 21 December 2016 (PTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by HenryBarnill (talk • contribs)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Reese Witherspoon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:00, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Hillbillyholiday's recent edits

He/she has been removing large chucks and claims they are "fancruft". I wouldn't describe information, such as her arrest, as fancruft. Whatever he/she has removed deserve to be in the article. .—HenryBarnill (User talk:HenryBarnill) 22:18, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

  • The arrest was discussed here and was considered undue, as you well know, Henry
  • The divorce proceedings were clearly given way too much coverage and were poorly sourced
  • The coverage of her suit against Star magazine does not give the outcome
  • Other dating material is poorly sourced
Krimuk2.0, can you justify your reinsertion of this material? --Hillbillyholiday talk 17:08, 15 August 2017 (UTC) ("He" by the way)
  • There was no explanation fro the arrest to be "undue". It was an important event in her public life and was one of the biggest Hollywood news back when it happened. Numerous legit news outlets (not just gossip sites) covered it. Deleting it is removing a very important part of her life. You might as well go to every person's page and delete any miention of their arrest if that's what you want to do with this.
  • The divorce was also a big event. The sources are all the same you can find online. Nothing poor. Maybe it could be shortened but it doesn't need a deletion.
  • There was an outcome to it. I'll locate it and put it on the article, provided you will let me.
  • Perhaps the mentioning of dating Jake Gyllenhaal could've been shortened but it still belongs due to it regarding her personal life.

You are basically erasing her history if you think you can hide all of this. —HenryBarnill (User talk:HenryBarnill) 11:24. 15 August 2017 (UTC)

  • You might as well go to every person's page and delete any miention of their arrest if that's what you want to do with this.
Ah now, this is a very good suggestion. There is a general consensus over the years not to mention trivial arrests, unless they impact significantly on the subject's career. This should be obvious; Wikipedia is not (meant to be) a tabloid (although in actuality it is very often far worse) nor is it meant to be a repository for every single event in a person's life.
I am glad to see that you accept the need for a reduction of the information contained within in the Personal life section. Such sections should be removed altogether if you ask me. --Hillbillyholiday talk 18:59, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Reese Witherspoon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:14, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Reese_Witherspoon/Archive_1&oldid=1137118941"