Talk:Reese Witherspoon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Reese Witherspoon is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 22, 2008.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
December 19, 2007 Good article nominee Listed
January 30, 2008 Featured article candidate Promoted
Current status: Featured article

2013 arrest[edit]

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.[1] 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.[1] 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.[1][2] The couple were released on bond at 3:30 AM the same day.[3] Witherspoon was able to attend the New York premiere of her film Mud on April 21, 2013,[4] 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."[5] 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.[6]

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 c Johnson, Ted (April 21, 2013). "Reese Witherspoon and Agent Husband Arrested in DUI Incident (EXCLUSIVE)". Variety. Retrieved April 21, 2013. 
  2. ^ Fleeman, Mike (May 2, 2013). "Reese Witherspoon Arrest Videos Hit the Internet". People. Retrieved May 2, 2013. 
  3. ^ 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. 
  4. ^ Takeda, Allison (April 21, 2013). "Reese Witherspoon Smiles on First Red Carpet After Arrest: Picture". Us Weekly. Retrieved April 21, 2013. 
  5. ^ Nashawaty, Chris (April 22, 2013). "Reese Witherspoon issues statement – apology – about her arrest". Entertainment Weekly. Retrieved April 22, 2013. 
  6. ^ 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[edit]

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)

External links modified[edit]

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}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

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

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

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 (talkcontribs)

External links modified[edit]

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.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

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

Hillbillyholiday's recent edits[edit]

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)