Talk:Anna Wintour

Nationality

How is she 'English-American' just because she lives in America ? She was born in the UK to parents who were both UK citizens and for lack of evidence to the contrary, is a UK citizen herself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.107.150.25 (talk) 23:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Her mother was American even though she lived in the UK (which, I believe, granted her dual citizenship at birth). Do read the article; it's meant to explain these things. Daniel Case (talk) 02:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I have just updated the article to show her ethnicity as English and American. The term English American describes an American citizen with an English background (see the article on English Americans). Persons born in England of American parentage do not necessarily acquire American citizenship at birth; their parents must meet certain US residency requirements.

I have also set a citation requirement for the claim that she is an English American, as, once again, this specifically refers to an American citizen of English descent. --87.194.181.170 (talk) 23:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

"English American" can also cover English immigrants to the U.S. (Frederick Clarke Withers, for instance), which she is even if she wasn't a U.S. citizen at birth. If you have better citations on U.S. citizenship law ca. 1949, show them. It's my understanding that her citizenship was automatic either at birth or opt-in at majority due to her mother's. Her biographies don't go into great detail about this, because she herself doesn't. Daniel Case (talk) 01:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

As a US lawyer, admitted in New York State, and an English solicitor, I believe the best sources for clarifying these tricky legal disagreements are case law and legislation. I therefore submit the relevant statute in force at Anna's birth:

The Nationality Act of 1940, Section 201, 54 Stat. 1137.

"Section 201. The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

"(g) A person born outside the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, has had ten years' residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, at least five of which were after attaining the age of sixteen years, the other being an alien: Provided, That in order to retain such citizenship, the child must reside in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling five years between the ages of thirteen and twenty-one years: Provided further, That, if the child has not taken up a residence in the United States or its outlying possessions by the time he reaches the age of sixteen years, or if he resides abroad for such a time that it becomes impossible for him to complete the five years' residence in the United States or its outlying possessions before reaching the age of twenty-one years, his American citizenship shall thereupon cease.

(h) The foregoing provisions of subsection (g) concerning retention of citizenship shall apply to a child born abroad subsequent to May 24, 1934."

I would direct your attention to the text in bold. This first sets out the residency requirements of her mother. They may well have been satisfied; however, in the interests of accuracy, it cannot be assumed that they were. Secondly and most pertinently, the excerpt provides that, under the 1940 Act, Anna would have lost her potential entitlement to US citizenship on her sixteenth birthday, since, according to the article you micromanage so assiduously, she didn't move to the US until 1975. This second residency requirement was relaxed by Section 301 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of June 27, 1952, which would have given her until her 23rd birthday to move to the US and maintain residency for five years. As she would have been 25 or 26 in 1975, she also falls foul of this requirement.

Although I do sparingly little immigration work in my professional life, I have extensive personal experience in British and American nationality law due to several of my relatives' and my own dual (American and British) nationality.

You prefaced your request for the above sources by claiming that the term English American applies to all English immigrants to the US, whether or not naturalized as US citizens. However, the Wikipedia article on English Americans is quite specific in excluding people of this classification. I had a look at three other articles for similar terms (viz: Italian, French and African American), and there does seem to be some confusion about whether non-citizen residents fall under these definitions. That does not change the fact that the Wikipedia article on English Americans and this article are inconsistent, and that, accordingly, one of them should be changed.

The overriding issue here is that the wording you use appears to be intended to lead people to believe that Anna is an American citizen, whereas we haven't been able to prove that she is, by birth or naturalization. I am at least the third person to point this out, but you appear to have something of a monopoly on the content of this article, as well as a desire to portray this person as an American citizen. While I am not yet prepared to assert that this article contains bias, I am convinced that a change of wording is due. 87.194.181.170 (talk) 11:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Memoirs and Biographies

This section doesn't feel well organized. I also have a problem with the last paragraph about the "interview footage." I've seen tons of interviews (albeit soundbites) of Anna Wintour at various fashion weeks around the world. So I wish the author would clarify what is meant by "Many believe this to be the only video interview footage of Anna Wintour available on the internet." --Jhlynes 20:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC) I had the pleasure to wait on Anna Wintour this past Saturday ay J.Press Inc..I found her attractive,personal,polite and charming.Ed Evans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.190.45.20 (talk) 18:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

A Photo Would Be Nice

Considering that Google is littered with an endless number of photos of Anna Wintour why isn't there one here? The Fading Light 17:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Because, until I persuaded someone at Flickr to change the licensing, we couldn't find a good free-use one. Daniel Case 03:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Notes for any GA reviewers

While I am not the nominator, I have done most of the work on this article, probably the best biography within WP:FASHION, a category full of sorry ones. It has been peer-reviewed; if you missed the link under the Biography project banner the archived version is here.

I certainly second the nomination (as I was planning eventually to nominate it myself), but while I naturally think it's a Good Article already, I have done that reviewing myself and know what you would be looking at. So I will pre-emptively address possible concerns:

• Article length. Yes, it's 56K, a bit long even by the standards of FA biographies of living people. But I do not see it getting substantially longer at this point nor in the foreseeable future.

• Paucity of images. There are plenty of pictures of Wintour in the present, many very good ones, but very few of them really useful for illuminating aspects of the article. We have a very good free one to identify her, an especially representative one (wearing the sunglasses and watching a fashion show), and that's what counts.

  I would be the first to include pictures of the younger Wintour if we had them. Jerry Oppenheimer doesn't seem to have found any; he mentions two key ones from the early 70s that can be found in the appropriate magazines. I will be looking for them whenever I think an FA nomination is viable.

• Heavy reliance on one source. Oppenheimer's bio, while it seems to be regarded by most reviewers as a hack's hatchet job, is nevertheless well-researched and, more to the point, the only source for much information about her early life and career. Everything else in other articles seems to come from it; nobody really disputes much of what is reported therein. I did try to leaven it with a broader variety of sources for the present — indeed, I found the quotes from other people, named and unnamed, to be the best way of getting to the subject in the article.

That's all for now. Enjoy your review.

(And, by the way, if you do pass it please restore the assessment to A-class, where it was before the nomination. Daniel Case 03:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

GA Comments

Although I am not a part of the good article wikiproject, I thought I'd add my 2 cents.

You don't need to be to review and pass or fail articles. Daniel Case 03:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Overall, this is an excellent article. Kudos to the contributors who have developed this.

Mostly me, to be honest. Daniel Case 03:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I have a few minor suggestions for consideration: 1. In the lead section, the third sentence, "After dropping out of school at 16...." is very long. Any chance that can be broken up a bit? 2. In general, the article's grammar relies on the passive voice – maybe too much. I've made a few edits here and there, but you may want to reconsider verb choices.

These are probably going to be dealt with by the copyedit I had done on a print copy but was putting off actually putting in the article until I had finished assessing the many articles in WP:FASHION, which I'm on the home stretch of at the moment (can perhaps finish later tonight).

3. While the article does not include many images, it might be helpful to find some of the covers from her early reworking of Vogue. May require some additional legwork to a library or used magazine store, but would add a lot.

I live near enough to two good university libraries, so this may be possible. I really really would like the November 1988 Vogue cover discussed at length in the story. Daniel Case 03:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

4. The present section starts and stays at 2004. That's three years ago. Any chance that can be updated to 2006-2007? Also, some of the future events referenced that section may have already happened.

I have that at "present" because there hasn't been much change in her professional or personal life since her divorce and Shelby Bryan. I suppose it could probably be rewritten. Daniel Case 03:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

5. The references include repeated uses of "Ibid" when sourcing from Oppenheimer. As I recall, this approach is discouraged since future editing may change the order of references which could make it difficult to trace the original sources. For instance, the Dextroamphetamine article has an excellent reference structure that was set up by SandyGeorgia.

I'll look at it. Daniel Case 03:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

There are also several small grammatical issues that I'll take on personally. Mattnad 22:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

And I'll try to do my mass copy edit soon. Daniel Case 03:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

This article has been languishing on the nominations page for far too long, therefore I have decided to review it. There are a few issues I have with the article.

1) Sometimes the prose is very confusing. For example, I would avoid sentances like this:

• "She would go to the opening of an envelope", joked her former friend Vivienne Lasky.

And this:

• At her parents' behest, she also took some fashion classes at a nearby school, but soon dropped out, telling Lasky that "you either know fashion or you don't".

The quote is nice, but not saying the name of the friend. Her name is not important. Then when I came to the next sentance I couldn't figure out who Lasky was until I went back. Any references to the quotes of unimportant people should be removed andreplaced with something generic like friend.

• "Anna is a liberal," says Amiel. Who is Amiel?

Barbara Amiel, who's mentioned in the text several grafs earlier. I expect that people will be able to keep track of a recent second reference and I hate reusing names ... it tells the reader you don't think they're that intelligent. But I'll smooth it over. You may have a point.

• Amiel reported that at first Wintour said the film would probably go straight to DVD. Again....
• It was smoked salmon and scrambled eggs every single day" for lunch, says Liz Walker, a coworker at Harpers & Queen. "She would eat nothing else". Who cares about Liz Walker?

2) The article is too long. Here are some suggestions on how to shorten it.

• Merge some paragraphs together to make it appear shorter. Get rid of one and two line paragraphs such as this paragraph which can be merged or eliminated.

Similarly, in younger days she often left the task of writing the text accompanying her layouts to others, since, many of those who did say, she has minimal skills in that area.[63] Today she writes little for the magazine save the monthly editor's letter.

• The criticism section should be cut down, as it takes up a significant part of the article. Cut down the elitism section especially, get rid of the Amiel quote. This section should be cut down by half.
• Cut down the responses section by half
• Consider eliminating the portrayals part from her biography section and move it to a new section called 'In popular culture.' You could also move the Devil Wears Prada part to this new section too, and thus shorten the criticism section.
  • I was told in peer review to integrate that into the article as a whole, that we are trying to avoid those "In popular culture" sections (and I sort of agree with that).

3) A slight suggestion on cutting down. Get ridof mentions of unremarkable people that are not important to the article. Here are some examples:

• Polly Mellen, a coworker from her Harper's & Queen days, arranged for an interview with Vogue editor Grace Mirabella. Who is Polly Mellen?
• When it was reported that her editor suggested she completely start her third novel over, Wintour's spokesman Patrick O'Connell suggested Weisberger "should get a job as someone else's assistant." Do we care what her sopkesperson's name is?
• When the film was released, one of the company's magazines, The New Yorker, ran a review of the film by David Denby that disparaged the novel in comparison. Do we really need to know the reviewers name? The sentence makes just as much sense omitting it.Zeus1234 20:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I am putting the article on hold. Please do not hesitate to ask me any questions. Zeus1234 20:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppenheimer as source

I agree that Oppenheimer's biography is well researched. It does, however, portray only a single frame of mind. There is quite a large amount of info on the internet (concerning Anna). Also, do not hesitate to have designers and co-workers comment - with Anna EVERYONE has an opinion. Moreover, everyone has a bit of little known Anna experiences. Getting even just one person of notable status to share their comments and bits of info would contribute massively to the article (anonymously, of course :-> ). Have you (Daniel) had a look at Coddington's new book? Valentino's offices might just have a little something to add, if approached correctly. Also, do not hesitate to email current co-workers, you might just get VERY lucky (which is not as far-fetched as it sounds).—Preceding unsigned comment added by Princessconzuella (talk • contribs)

I didn't know Coddington had a book out. I'll have to take a look.

As for personal interviews, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which reflects what others have written and published and thus cannot be the reporter of first instance. To contact people and ask for comments and facts would be considered original research and thus ineligible for inclusion in a Wikipedia article. In addition, it is explicitly prohibited by our verifiability (how easy would it be for any member of the public to call up and ask someone if they said something?) and reliable sources policies, which are both in the case of an article like this complicated even more by the biographies of living persons policy. Therefore we can't use personal conversations or things like most blog postings. We are mostly limited to what has been published in books or by established media sources. Daniel Case 19:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Politics

I suggest a reconsideration on my persistent efforts to edit the "Politics" section so as to reflect her full quote regarding Clinton's decision to back out of Vogue. The quote you have is truncated and misrepresents the intention of Wintour's statement. I placed the Media Matters link because it was the only one I can find that has the quote in its entirety, and the Media Matters link also exposes how Wintour's comment has been misrepresented to unfairly criticize Senator Clinton. 71.104.133.133 (talk) 11:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Frankly this extended discussion and the quote should be in the article on Hillary's presidential campaign. Given the quote-heaviness of this article to begin with and that most of the quotes are about Anna Wintour, not by her, I try to keep from adding long quotes. How about a sentence or two summarizing what she said and making it clear that her ultimate criticism was of American political culture, not Senator Clinton? Oh, and putting the full quote on the Anna Wintour Wikiquote page? Daniel Case (talk) 18:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions

These points might not be at all relevant to the article, but I'm wondering whether it is worth writing about the pressure from Wintour to reorganize Milan Fashion Week to suit her better? It seems to have caused a bit of a stir. This information might be suitable under Fashion industry power broker. (Moore, Malcolm; February 22 2008; "Dolce & Gabbana slams Milan Fashion Week"; The Daily Telegraph; retrieved February 23 2008.)

There's also been loads in the media about the situation where Armani made a criticism about Wintour in her presence. He basically implied that Wintour much prefers French and American designers compared to Italians designers. This would possibly be able to go under personal fashion preferences. (Cartner-Morley, Jess; February 21 2008; "Armani's cutting remarks about Vogue editor"; The Guardian; retrieved February 23 2008. and Peck, Sally; February 21 2008; "Giorgio Armani attacks Vogue's Anna Wintour"; The Daily Telegraph; retrieved February 23 2008.) Just thought it might be worth noting. Eagle Owl (talk) 14:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll look into them and see what I can do. Daniel Case (talk) 15:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

This article is called 'Anna Wintour' not 'Rapists and Airheads'

For this reason, if space has to be wasted on PETA's drama campaign it should be on their various pathetic actions that have received actual serious media coverage. That doesn't mean interviews with drama queens or passing mentions in articles about crazy rapists. But of course if you think Braunstein's support for PETA would be appropriate in that article, add it there. John Nevard (talk) 01:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

It is an encylopedic aspect of her public life. She has been attacked by PETA in person more than a few times. If you would prefer to discuss this in civil, neutral terms, please do so. If not, go find something to do somewhere else. Daniel Case (talk) 05:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

That's correct. She has been attacked by PETA in person more than a few times. And more importantly, this has drawn media attention. Wikipedia's 'Anna Wintour' article is supposed to be a biographical article on Anna Wintour, not on the inner thoughts of a rapist and an airhead model. John Nevard (talk) 10:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

At his trial (and incidentally Braunstein was neither charged with, nor convicted of, rape, so referring to him as a rapist would be a BLP violation ... he's in Category:American sex offenders for that reason) it was revealed that he had seriously planned to kill Wintour. His motives for wanting to do so are relevant, especially if they are related to another criticism of her.

Pamela Anderson is a notable figure whatever you think of her, and as someone at least tangentially involved in fashion her statements about a figure such as Anna Wintour are relevant if they are not only as sharply critical of her as they are but also if they make an allegation that she forces the use of fur on those who don't want it.

These are two short grafs in a long article that is, indeed, a biography of its subject. I don't see why you seem to imagine the entire article has been taken over by them. Daniel Case (talk) 16:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Braunstein's motives for wanting to kill people are relevant... on the biographical article about him. I don't know about you, but when I go to the article on George W. Bush I don't see even a single sentence saying something like 'Sean Penn thinks George Bush is a bad man and everything that is wrong with America.' -- because it is a reasonably well written article about George W. Bush.

See Criticism of George W. Bush. Daniel Case (talk) 12:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

As for Pamela Anderson, I'm sure there are plenty of stupid famous dead people who support PETA and made outrageous statements in minor interviews totally irrelevant to an article on the editor of Vogue. I just don't see what they have to do with Anna Wintour. John Nevard (talk) 11:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I strongly suggest you consider that not everyone edits from the point of view of suppressing animal rights-related POV-pushing and making combative, borderline incivil edit summaries. I'm pretty sure I just explained these things and why I have decided, for the moment, to include them. I include Braunstein's motives here because they are both related to common criticisms of Wintour. What Pamela Anderson said is relevant because she went further than just saying "Anna is a bad person because of fur". She said "Anna bullies designers and models into using fur". That's a specific factual allegation that adds something to that section. As a former glamor model she'd be in a position to elaborate on that if someone wanted to call her on it (and I hope someone does).

When I was researching this article I combed through dozens of critical and non-critical statements about Wintour; there are many I didn't include because they came from non-notable people or didn't add anything to things that had already been said or reported. If you're not going to read the things people write in response to you, and instead just find ways to reiterate what you so obviously love to read yourself typing, would you please go find something else to do? My good faith is slowly ebbing here. You are coming across like an extremely sophisticated troll. Daniel Case (talk) 12:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

{post by troll user removed)

Hmm. A single-purpose account whose username seems to be an attempt to taunt me personally for reasons I won't go into suddenly pops up with this one edit.

All sniffing at the laundry basket aside, I will admit I should have said "allegation of fact" to avoid any suggestion that I necessarily believe it (I don't, but that's not relevant to whether it should be in the article IMO). Daniel Case (talk) 16:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

(post by troll user removed)

OK, I know this is a taunt account now. And you know why and I won't go into it. I consider this slightly threatening, and I may have to do something about what's getting a little on the stalkerish side. No, a lot on the stalkerish side. Daniel Case (talk) 23:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh damn. My bad. I thought Pamela Anderson was dead, it must have been some other person of her calibre. M.S.; what I consider more important is that if she said in a interview (that no news reporters paid any attention) that 'I love Walden Pond' and David Hasselhoff said in another interview 'It's not a bad place, really, apart from the terrible spate of muggings'... neither would deserve mention in the Walden Pond article. Random interviews might be alright for personal biographical details, but they are bad sources for anything else and they don't establish relevance of topics covered to anything but (maybe) the interviewee. John Nevard (talk) 21:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Same goes for Braunstein- the weirder that saga got, the better it was for the media. Doubtless the fur anecdote was the most interesting bit of whatever crazy 'reasoning' he had going on.John Nevard (talk) 21:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

If you're going to engage in sockpuppetry and strongly suggest you have some personal information on me, please do it somewhere else. This is pathetic. Truly pathetic. You are now officially trolling, as far as I'm concerned. Daniel Case (talk) 23:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Responses

"Most of us read Vogue not with the intention of buying the wildly expensive clothes, but because doing so educates our eye and hones our taste, similar to the way eating gourmet food refines the palate. This is a pleasure enabled by Wintour's ruthless aesthetic, her refusal to participate in the democratizing tendency of most of her competitors. To deny her that privilege is to deny her readers the privilege of fantasy in the form of beautifully photographed Paris couture.[46]"

Does anyone else agree that this para sounds like it's just lifted straight from the source? It doesn't sit well with the NPOV of the rest of the artice - not very 'encyclopedic'. Perhaps it could be included as a quote if the source is notable, rather than straight text. However, I am new to editing so I may be wrong.Geneth (talk) 10:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

It's footnoted and put in the {{quote}} template. It looks regularly formatted because of the adjoining image. Daniel Case (talk) 13:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there's no picture next to it. You'll see that it's all indented more than usual, as a blockquote. The preceding text it very clear that it's quoted material, even attributing the author. Daniel Case (talk) 15:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Apologies - upon closer reading I can see that it is indeed a quote. I don't think that I'm the only person who would make that mistake, however.Geneth (talk) 14:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I should use the much-maligned {{cquote}} template, then ... it would put curly quotes on it. Daniel Case (talk) 14:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC) Nope, scratch that ... the template documentation says not to use it for blockquotes. Daniel Case (talk) 14:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I made the same mistake. It's not indented on my display, and the fact that the lead-up to the quote is a complete sentence makes it more confusing. I read it and thought, "is this a quote? who said it?" I had to come to the talk page to figure it out, and I'm not very slow (though it is Monday). Good article overall LoLo McSpanky (talk) 22:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I made the adjoining image smaller and moved it up so the quote formatting is more obvious. Let's see if that works. Daniel Case (talk) 22:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Separated at birth?

I personally think that the prevalence of "in popular culture" material in Wikipedia is way overdone, but since we have such a section in this article...
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/85/Anna_Wintour.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Edna_Mode.jpg
I wonder whether this is more than coincidence. (Obviously, we wouldn't include this in the article without a cite.) -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 13:32, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

It has been discussed, but it was taken out a long time ago since the only source we had was a journalist's passing mention in a profile, which wasn't strong enough. Daniel Case (talk) 14:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Anna Wintour/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

Starting GA reassessment as part of the GA Sweeps process. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   Conde Nast: It had long lagged Architectural Digest,... What does that mean?; The Devil Wears Prada: Ultimately, The Devil Wears Prada may have actually done Wintour a favor by increasing her name recognition. POV, rewrite neutrally; In fact theer is a lot of writing here that when not attributed to a commentator loks to be POV. The Lead needs to be rewritten neutrally.Y

 Done I also found some other areas that needed rewriting.

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   I repaired 21 and tagged 3 references and external links using Checklinks. Four dead links remain (all tagged}}. There are some outstanding citation needed tags, I have added a couple. As this is a BLP the sourcing must be impeccable. I fixed the outstanding cites. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:52, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

2. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

3. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   This needs addressing as mentioned above.

4. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

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

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

6. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

On hold for seven days for above issues to be addressed. Major contributors and projects will be notified. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC) OK, all done now. keep GA status. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:52, 16 August 2009 (UTC)