Talk:Kate Winslet/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Kate Winslet. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=%2Farts%2F2005%2F12%2F05%2Flnickbarratt05.xml
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118052067?refCatId=13
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090331131542/http://www.premiere.com/List/The-100-Greatest-Performances-of-All-Time/The-100-Greatest-Performances-of-All-Time-100-75 to http://www.premiere.com/List/The-100-Greatest-Performances-of-All-Time/The-100-Greatest-Performances-of-All-Time-100-75

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 02:21, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kate Winslet. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110604142652/http://www.salon.com/entertainment/tv/feature/2011/03/24/mildred_pierce_hbo_overview/index.html to http://www.salon.com/entertainment/tv/feature/2011/03/24/mildred_pierce_hbo_overview/index.html

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 13:39, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Merkin

Resolved

@Brianboulton: since you have conducted the source review for this article at the FAC, do you think BullRangifer's addition followed by this explanation is justified? Thanks. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:38, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

It was not an "addition", but a restoration of long-standing content that was removed without any discussion. No policy-based reason has been provided for not including it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:38, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

It's not really a sources issue. The question is why anyone should think that including such tatty, inconsequential trivia enhances the article in any way. This is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid rag-sheet that wallows in such rubbish. Have you approached the content reviewers who have contributed to the FAC? See what they think. Brianboulton (talk) 13:51, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

I've removed the whole merkin business from the article. Also pinging the FAC reviewers, Aoba47, Moisejp, Nikkimaria, and ArturSik, for their comments, if any. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 16:11, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

• I agree with Brianboulton that it is inappropriate for Wikipedia. Aoba47 (talk) 16:33, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Multiple issues are at stake here.

We're looking at a violation of WP:PRESERVE, since this was a widely reported matter (which removes it from "trivia" territory). When I originally fixed the inaccurate content, I had to wade through myriad RS. I was rather surprised. It wasn't easy to get the full quote, since I didn't have the magazine itself, but I found it here.

For the record, the accurate history of Winslet's refusal to wear a merkin in "The Reader" was buried by RS, and that affected editing here at Wikipedia. We got it wrong, and I fixed it.

The wide coverage of the subject was universally inaccurate in RS, claiming she wore one, and editors here cited RS to back that view. The one source which was accurate, Winslet herself, was universally misquoted in RS by using only part of her quote in Allure magazine. In this article we set the record straight. If we don't have the content in this article, let's make sure it remains in the Merkin article.

• June 11, 2009 Diff of attempt by an admin to add inaccurate content without a source
• June 12, 2009 Source added
• March 15, 2010 An attempted improvement, still perpetuating a false idea
• March 27, 2011 The content was removed, rather than fixed (a violation of WP:PRESERVE)
• October 26, 2011 I added a reliable version, including mention of Lucy Lawless. That content has been stable since then.

We had inaccurate content here from June 11, 2009 til March 27, 2011. That's bad. Then, because of a violation of WP:PRESERVE, we failed to cover it at all for seven months. Then I fixed it.

The issue of Winslet's use of a merkin was widely misreported in RS. Wikipedia did its job to document "the sum total of human knowledge" (Jimbo). In so doing, we improved the knowledge base of the world and corrected a long-held, very inaccurate, misunderstanding of the subject and of Winslet. That's what we do here.

PRESERVE is important. We don't just delete content that's reliably sourced because we don't like it or think it's "inappropriate". We improve it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:59, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

• The issue of the merkin is not relevant to the article on Winslet's overall career and life. It may be useful for the article on The Reader itself, but it does not have a place on here. Aoba47 (talk) 18:29, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

• I tend to agree. (Copying my comment from above...) If we don't have the content in this article, let's make sure it remains in the Merkin article. Including it at The Reader also makes sense. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:52, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

• The inclusion of the detail didn't really bother me. I read it as being in the same vein as the detail about her believing nude scenes promoted positive body image among women, and her refusal to let the media dictate or misrepresent her weight. But I also don't mind if the consensus is to remove it. Moisejp (talk) 18:56, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

• I see your point. Maybe the real issue here isn't so much whether it's "appropriate" for Wikipedia, but a matter of "where" it's appropriate. It's clearly very much on-topic at Merkin and The Reader. In this article it would be better placed in connection with her attitudes about nudity in films. Since that's a rather notable (and noticeable ) matter with her history in films, could we collect that information in one place in this article and restore the deleted content there? I would see that as a much better resolution of this matter. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:15, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

• I agree that this is a better idea – I didn't think that the information was inappropriate or trivial at any point; it's just a matter of where in the article the information is best suited. Because it is important to Winslet, I don't think that simply deleting would have solved anything. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:47, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

• If the information is added back to the article, then the wording needs to be improved. For instance, the following quote ('Guys, I am going to have to draw the line at a pubic wig, but you can shoot my own snatch up close and personal) is rather unnecessary and gives off the tone of a tabloid or popular news in comparison to an encyclopedia. Aoba47 (talk) 22:50, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

• But this isn't an ordinary encyclopedia. We include far more than any other, and we're not paper or censored. Her statement is her statement. It's not trivial. Yet, we're not including it in the main body of text, but keeping it in the refs section. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:05, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

• I agree with Aoba that if the information is added back to the article, it should be simple like what it was before: “A merkin was designed for her frontal nude scenes, but she refused to wear it.” When I said the content hadn’t bothered me, I meant this original sentence, and I hadn’t noticed the content added in the footnote, which I agree is tabloid-y and not appropriate for a FA candidate. Moisejp (talk) 06:16, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, if we do add it back, it should be without the superfluous quote as footnote. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:46, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

• Okay, we're making progress. If we leave out the quote in the references section, we're left without much verification that our statement is true. How about we only include this part of the quote: "They even made me a merkin because they were so concerned that I might not be able to grow enough. I said, 'Guys, I am going to have to draw the line at a pubic wig,..." Would that be good enough? It's certainly not sensational, but proves the point. WP:Verifiability is a key policy here. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:06, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

• But why? “A merkin was designed for her frontal nude scenes, but she refused to wear it” is verification enough. We don't need quotes to verify every statement made in this article. Just the correct reference is sufficient. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:08, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

• The reference doesn't prove the "...but she refused to wear it" part, though – only the full interview from the print edition does, which is what we're sourcing/quoting. I agree with BullRangifier, and think the part of the quote that he has suggested is perfect – I would say just include the reference that mentions the full interview (not both), and only use the trimmed quote. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 07:18, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, we should include the source with the full interview, but I still believe that we don't need to mention the quote at all. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:27, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

• I agree with Krimuk2.0. Moisejp (talk) 14:26, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

• The quote is unnecessary and does not add anything for the reader's understanding of the content. The verification comes from the source itself. A simple sentence such as the one proposed above would be more beneficial, with the source itself being used as verification. If necessary, then the quote could be cited in the reference itself as a way to prove that the information is indeed in the print source, but putting it in the body of the article itself seems rather unnecessary to me. Please reference Template:Cite news to see how quotes can be put into the reference if this is the method that is agreed upon. It is also important to remember that this is indeed an encyclopedia so tone is still important to keep in mind when contributing/adding information on here. Tl;dr: The quote could be used in the reference itself, but I do not believe it has a place in the body of the article and the single sentence proposed above should be used in its place. Aoba47 (talk) 18:13, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

• Aoba47, no one has proposed changing the single sentence in the article. Rather than completely eliminate the quote in the ref's section, I proposed we reduce it to the bare minimum, since accessing the actual verification is nearly impossible for most people, whereas accessing a misleading (totally opposite!) version is very easy on the internet. Here's the sentence: "They even made me a merkin because they were so concerned that I might not be able to grow enough. I said, 'Guys, I am going to have to draw the line at a pubic wig,..." That should be enough for the ref's section, and the sentence in the article remains unchanged. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:37, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

• That makes sense to me. It just needs to formatted properly in the references section. Aoba47 (talk) 05:06, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

My strong opinion on the subject:

1. This tacky quotation ("They even made me a merkin because they were so concerned that I might not be able to grow enough. I said, 'Guys, I am going to have to draw the line at a pubic wig,...") has no place in a FA, either in the main text or in the references.
2. As Krimuk2.0 says, all we need to prove the statement “A merkin was designed for her frontal nude scenes, but she refused to wear it” is the reference itself, no supplementary quotations.
3. It's not Wikipedia's job to go out of its way to self-consciously disprove misconceptions that may or may not be widespread on other web sites. Wikipedia's job is just to tell the facts straightforwardly, and “A merkin was designed for her frontal nude scenes, but she refused to wear it” (with the accompanying reference) does just that.
4. I would much prefer see the merkin not mentioned at all in the article, rather than the quotation BullRangifer is proposing. Moisejp (talk) 05:23, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you for your comments. I agree with a majority of them. I was just trying to propose some sort of compromise. I would prefer the short sentence. I am still not 100% sold that this information is necessary for the article on the actress; the information still seems more appropriate it for the article on the film. Also, it seems a little odd to me that this has been the subject of so many "misconceptions" when there was a lot more controversy from other aspects of the film. I will leave this discussion to more experienced users though as I do not feel qualified enough to really help that much here. Aoba47 (talk) 05:50, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Here is a tentative version, with an even shorter part of the quote (we'd leave out the stricken part):

• A merkin was designed for her frontal nude scenes, but she refused to wear it.

Sources

How's that? -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:59, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Normally, I'm all for compromise when there's a reasonable argument behind it, but I simply don't understand why you seem so hung up on adding content that seems to want to self-consciously say, "Hey everybody, you may have read elsewhere that Winslet wore a merkin, but guess what? She didn't!" That's not Wikipedia's role to make that kind of statement, especially not in a FA. Moisejp (talk) 16:08, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

The subject has been our content for SIX EIGHT YEARS, and only became an issue when one editor removed it without any discussion. This has nothing to do with FA (it's a GA). We have no such policy that forbids such content in an FA or GA. It's about our goal to document "the sum total of human knowledge" and respect WP:PRESERVE. Most of the arguments for not including it have been "I don't like it", and so far zero policy-based arguments.

Now we've moved on to finding a better place in the article to use it than where it was for eight years. Please address that location, where its relevance is clearly more appropriate. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:08, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I have the exact same feelings as Moisejp. I'm baffled by your instance on adding this bit about a merkin -- of all the things in the world we could be arguing about. I frankly don't understand why this is important, and if we could have an informal vote, I suggest a strong oppose to any mention of it in this article. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 17:52, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Let's once again correct your misinformation. I did NOT ADD anything. You REMOVED it, without any discussion, even though this correct version has been unattacked content in this GA for six years (actually the subject has been here EIGHT YEARS, since 2009).

Originally it was ADDED by a sysop (who has more edits than I have, and has been here even longer), but the content was misleading, so I "corrected" it. I didn't "add" it. It is your removal and violation of PRESERVE that created this debacle. I'm already conceding a whole lot, so try to compromise. See my comment immediately after Aoba47's comment below. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:35, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

• If it comes down to an informal vote, I would vote something along the lines of moving to the article on the film. Aoba47 (talk) 21:14, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

• (You may wish to read my response above before reading here.) It's already in the other articles. I can understand the argument for removing it from the location it had for EIGHT years and moving it to the much better location in this article. That makes sense. It fits much better there. I'll even go along with shortening the quote in the refs, but there is no policy-based argument for complete removal of all mention. "I don't like it" is not a reason to remove long-standing, properly sourced content. I've been here since 2003 and have a bit of experience under my belt. I don't see a legitimate reason for complete removal. Being shy and prudish on behalf of Winslet is a slap in her face. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:35, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

• @BullRangifer: The real question for me is not tied to being "shy and prudish", but if the information is really relevant for a place in an article on Winslet's overall career and life. I just do not find the point of Winslet not wearing a merkin to be a major or important point that requires inclusion in this article. As I have stated above, this film received a lot of attention and controversy for other reasons, particularly for its subject matter; I prefer the way that the section on The Reader is currently structured as it keeps the focus on her role and the criticism towards the character. It would seem a little out of place to me to put even a single sentence on the merkin in that particular section. To repeat yet again, I just do not find a discussion on the lack of merkin to be that notable to be on this article, and I believe it belongs in the article for The Reader film. I have no issue with the references being used for the film article. I am also not really a fan of this comment ("I don't like it" is not a reason to remove long-standing, properly sourced content.) that you made above as I believe that my comments and contributions go further then that to point to where I believe this reference/information would be more appropriate. It is not necessary to put other editors/contributors down in order to make your point. I am honestly just surprised that out of everything from the film that the issue of a merkin is getting the most discussion on here lol. Aoba47 (talk) 03:54, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

• I understand your surprise. I too feel the same way. The content was stable and accepted for eight years. Now one editor removed it and all hell broke loose. They shouldn't have done that without discussion.

My apologies for seeming snarkiness. It was not directed at you, but at the general tone of many commentators here. No policy-based arguments have been presented to remove it. THAT should concern you, as it does me. The amount of discussion is obviously out of proportion to her career, but that's the nature of Wikipedia talk pages and has no bearing on whether or not a subject should be mentioned. PRESERVE requires that each detail, even insignificant, is defended and included in an appropriate manner. In this case a better location (and shortening of the quote) seems a good solution.

We are already past the point of discussing the original location of the sentence. (That's just happened to be the location when I found and corrected it.) I agree that it should not be there. It belongs in the area dealing with her attitude toward nudity in her films. It's often good to keep similar topics together in an article, so moving it to that spot makes good sense. Nudity and Winslet are very related topics, so it's an important topic to broach here. She revels in it and is against censorship.

In fact, when I first read the content that had been here for two years, the inaccuracy of the content jumped right out at me. I thought "That doesn't ring true for her. She would not wear a merkin." So I started digging into the reference and discovered it was wrong. Then I searched the internet for all that was said about it and found a lot of RS references, ALL of them wrong, except for one, the original Allure interview with Winslet.

So I did what is our duty to do here; I corrected and improved it. Instead of being thanked, I'm being criticized, and my diligence and hard work thrown away. That's not right and is bad faith toward a loyal editor. I did the right thing by honoring the subject and following the WP:PRESERVE policy. I am not free to ignore it. No editor has that liberty. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:20, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

• @BullRangifer: You are not even reading my argument at this point because you are completely misinterpreting it to go along with what you believe is right. I do not believe that this content should be in the general article on Kate Winslet and I believe that the content should only be in the article on the film The Reader. Also, you misinterpreted my surprise as I was not referencing the user who edited out the content. I was referencing that out of everything that was controversial about this film (i.e. accusations of Holocaust revisionism), that the point of Winslet not wearing a merkin is the major point of discussion on Winslet's talk page. Whenever I talk to people about this film, we have arguments more so about its representation of the Holocaust much more than this. Also, I do not understand your point here (We are already past the point of discussing the original location of the sentence.). There has been no consensus about anything regarding this at this point to support that at all.
• This will honestly be my last post in this and I will leave this up to the other editors in this discussion (such as @Krimuk2.0: and @Moisejp:). I am surprised how defensive you are getting in this conversation; I understand why you would feel that way, but adding that to the point that you completely misreading my comments to fit your point of view. To be completely transparent, we do not agree on this matter.
• This article already covers Winslet's attitude about nudity in films through this part: (Winslet is known for her willingness to perform nude scenes, having done so in 12 of her films, although she considers its contribution to the narrative before agreeing to it. She believes that these scenes promote a positive body image among women.). I think that covers on her attitude towards the subject quite nicely as it clear and concise. Also in the way that the issue of the absence of a merkin was discussed in the original edit here, it really does not contribute much if anything to Winslet's approach to nudity in film. It simply says Winslet did not wear a merkin in a film. How can that be used to be representative or contribute to a deeper understanding of her attitude towards nudity in films? Again, I believe that sentences that I have pointed out above. This will be my last post on here as we are just going in circles at this point. I apologize for the length of my post. I have tried to split it up to make it more readable. Good luck with this Krimuk2.0 and with your FAC. Maybe turning this into a Wikipedia:Requests for comment would be helpful to get other people's points of view would be helpful? Either way, I'm out. Aoba47 (talk) 16:34, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

BullRangifer, if it has sounded like I or anyone else here has questioned your earnestness or good faith, I apologize. I just don’t think PRESERVE is the be all and end all point of this discussion. Articles evolve. Her career and life have progressed. There have been eight years more of details that have been added since 2009 or 2010. It’s normal for editors to reassess what content to keep or remove to keep a good balance of information and not let the article balloon out of proportion. Krimuk2.0 looked at the article with a critical eye of what is likely to be accepted for the article to be promoted to FA. Nobody else did that over the 8 years, and that is why the content was “stable”. Even Brian Boulton, who has dozens and dozens of FAs to his name, above did not feel the content was appropriate for an FA article. Could you see things from the point of view of helping the article by including details (of the countless other details out there that could potentially be included but similarly aren’t) that have the best chanceof helping the article get to FA? Moisejp (talk) 16:28, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Aoba47 and Moisejp, I want to thank both of you for an engaging, informative, and civil discussion. It's very much appreciated. I think I can see where you're coming from, and I respect both of you. This has been good.

I respect the obvious consensus here and will not try to restore this subject in this article. It's covered well enough in the other articles, where it's obviously of more relevance. My understanding of PRESERVE allows this maneuver.

Articles can indeed grow to a point where sub-topics, individual sources, and even relatively small details, like this one sentence, need to be "moved", but they should not be "removed" entirely from Wikipedia. They are part of our MISSION, that is to find and document the "sum total of human knowledge". (BTW, spinoffs sub-articles are a specialty of mine. I have created some major ones.) We should always seek to improve or move such content. We shouldn't lose any content or sources. Doing so dishonors the hard work of editors who have done their duty to build the encyclopedia. It's very discouraging to see legitimate content trashed, and it's a POLICY and MISSION violation to do so. Treat everything here as discovered treasure. There is always a place for that content, and in this case there are two articles where it can reside in a better setting. That's good enough for me.

I wish you all well, and, as far as I'm concerned, we can close this thread as "resolved". Also, happy holidays! -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:28, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your graciousness in this matter, BullRangifer. Moisejp (talk) 16:02, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Does a single, fact-based, well-sourced comparison to Bette Davis constitute "trivia"?

Krimuk2.0, who successfully brought this article through FAC, and I, a longtime contributor to the article, have a disagreement.

For many years, the article included a subsection on the various "Academy Awards nomination milestones" Winslet has achieved. As part of the push to achieve FA status for the article, Krimuk2.0 eliminated that section, incorporating a small fraction of it into the article's primary narrative. When I returned to the article (and Wikipedia itself) after a long break, I was initially taken aback by the decision K2 (if I may) made. One reason was that K2's edit summary, "unnecessary trivia, most of which is now covered in the main body," was not accurate—of the five fundamental facts in the subsection, only two were "now covered in the main body." On reflection, however, I believe K2's decision was the right one. The paragraph on Oscar nominations for actors playing older and younger versions of the same character was indeed little more than trivia. And the paragraph about the Oscar/Golden Globe fates of Winslet's Revolutionary Road/Reader nominations, while not at all trivial to the many people who now minutely scrutinize awards season, was, I agree, too in-the-weeds for a proper encyclopedia article.

It is on the fifth fact (or couple of facts) that we differ. It is a fact that when Winslet set the record for youngest performer (of either sex) to achieve five Oscar acting nominations, she surpassed a mark set by the legendary Bette Davis that had stood for 66 years. And it is a fact that when Winslet set the record for youngest performer (of either sex) to achieve six Oscar acting nominations, she surpassed a mark set by the legendary Bette Davis that had stood for 67 years.

In the realm of English-language cinema, the bellwethers for all-time great careers for female actors are Bette Davis, Meryl Streep, and perhaps Katherine Hepburn. When an actress—when Winslet—surpasses significant benchmarks set by Bette Davis is that a fact worth noting or is it "trivial"?

I believe it is very much worth noting, however briefly, however parenthetically. Do any reliable sources support my position, explicitly making the comparison? Why yes, they do:

• Vogue: 5 Things You Didn’t Know About Kate Winslet
• Daily Times: Things you didn’t know about Kate Winslet
• Guardian (not to mention, the esteemed David Thomson): Kate Winslet

(And, of course, I'm ignoring all the technically "reliable", but low-quality sources that were simply reproducing facts from our own article.)

Here is the version of the relevant sentence K2 prefers: "At age 33, she surpassed her own record as the youngest performer to garner six Oscar nominations."

Here is the version of the relevant sentence that I back: "At age 33, she again set a record as the youngest performer to garner six Oscar nominations (as with her fifth nomination, she surpassed a mark set by Bette Davis).

(The copyeditors among us will see that there is a grammatical problem with K2's version, but that's a relatively minor issue I'm sure we can resolve informally.) So, to the question: Is the proposed parenthetical reference to Bette Davis trivial, or worthy of this Featured Article? DocKino (talk) 08:24, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Let me just add that in my edit summary I stated that the information deserves its place on Kate's awards page. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 08:38, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Another point: The version before DocKino's edits said "She surpassed her own record as the youngest actress with the most Oscar nominations, with her sixth when she was 33". Note that this version was added by John during the FAC review.

The current version: "At age 33, she surpassed her own record as the youngest performer to garner six Oscar nominations." is what I tweaked it to today to come to an understanding with DocKino. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 08:46, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

• (1) I respect John and I respect you, K2. But both of your versions are grammatically incorrect. Regarding John's: "the youngest actress with the most Oscar nominations" is, sorry John, simply nonsensical. If there were any way to resolve it grammatically, the most straightforward would be "the youngest actress with an Oscar nomination"—that would be nine-year-old Quvenzhané Wallis for her performance in Beasts of the Southern Wild. Regarding yours: "she surpassed her own record as the youngest performer to garner six Oscar nominations" suggests—obviously in error—that she previously held the record for "youngest performer to garner six Oscar nominations" and surpassed that same record. I hope you can see that error and how it stands outside our substantive disagreement.

• (2) Please allow me to add that I believe the comparison to Bette Davis is significant enough and well-sourced enough that it deserves its own, non-parenthetical sentence in the article. I believe I could campaign and win support for that position. However, out of respect for you, K2, and my sense that you were resistant, for whatever reason, to making this connection, I proposed from the outset a parenthetical mention that I sincerely thought would be a noncontroversial middle ground. DocKino (talk) 09:13, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the response, and for engaging constructively. Let's wait for what others have to say on this matter and if they are in agreement with you, I'll be glad to tweak it myself. Thank you. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 09:20, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I would say that it is very much worth noting in this article. It's hardly trivia. -- BullRangifer (talk) 08:42, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Infobox

@Krimuk2.0: I truly believe that there is no need to add the additional information to the image, which includes the film's name. It is not relevant to the image nor to the article. It does not help the reader comprehend the article better. As you have put it before, it is not an improvement. It is simply unnecessary. Many other articles about actors do not include this additional information as it really is irrelevant. As for the image, the one I placed (File:Kate Winslet March 18, 2014 (cropped).jpg) has better resolution (2.7 MB). Film Enthusiast (talk) 21:43, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

The cropped version has been chosen because it's a better fit for the infobox, and there is no rule that prohibits us from captioning the image by mentioning where it was taken. The fact that you consider it to be "simply unnecessary" is your personal opinion, and Wikipedia does not operate based on a walk-on editor's opinion. This article has passed an extensive FA review, and if you need to make changes to it, you need to do better than "I truly believe". --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:24, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

@Krimuk2.0: Could you please explain how the cropped version is a better fit as you say? Did others have a say on this or was it just your personal choice? Film Enthusiast (talk) 21:51, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Profile Picture

The profile picture is meant to represent the person of interest, in this case, a celebrity and an OBE recipient in an appealing light. The current run-and-gun photo dwarfs in comparison to the more professionally composed shot from 2011 as seen below.

• 

This photo despite being several years older is a better depiction of her looks in 2019. Streetsoda (talk) 04:31, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Image already in use in the "public image" section. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 05:59, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough. I can perhaps interchange the current profile picture with that one and have the problem solved. Let me know if this is okay. Streetsoda (talk) 14:40, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

I prefer the way it is now, but let's wait for other editors to weigh in. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 15:03, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

I know that being a recent image isn’t that much of a factor but I do prefer using them if they’re freely available. It’s not like the present one is overtly bad anyway. For a “run-and-gun” pic it’s actually pretty good. Her face is in shot, it’s not blurry. Rusted AutoParts 15:20, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

And to be a little nitpicky about Streetsoda’s initial comment, Winslet is actually CBE. Rusted AutoParts 15:21, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Hey guys, I'm also wondering if we can open the discussion up again about changing the image for the main page. The one on the left is obviously the curreent one in use, but I'm partial to the one on the right. I know it's from 2014, but the photo has qualities framing wise that look better, in my opinion at least. Thoughts? The One I Left (talk) 28 October 2020 (UTC)

• 
• 

Lead: "known for her portrayals of"

The second sentence in the lead:"She is known for her portrayals of angst-ridden women, typically in period dramas and tragedies." Is that specifically what she is best known for, for it to be the second sentence? One thinks of awards & critical success and Titanic/major films before the type of characters she (and most actors who've had major film, awards, and/or critical success) plays. The following sentence "Winslet is the recipient of several accolades, including three British Academy Film Awards, and is among the few performers to have won Academy, Emmy, and Grammy Awards." may be fitting for the second sentence. Thoughts? Lapadite (talk) 17:26, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Lapadite, I wish I'd seen this before I started trying to improve the very same sentence. You'll see below the problems this got me into. Deb (talk) 16:07, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Removing unsourced POV statement

• I removed the sentence:"She is particularly known for her work in period dramas and tragedies, and is often drawn to portraying troubled women." It's not true, it's unsourced, and it's blatantly POV - how can any of us know what she is "drawn to"? She's been in a lot of period dramas, and she's been in a lot of contemporary dramas. She's been in films with tragic endings, and she's been in comedies. Deb (talk) 13:36, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree with your edit, and I think @Krimuk2.0: needs to justify why they claimed you were removing "sourced info" and why it matters that this is a featured article -- if any article whatsoever has unsourced crap in it, that should be removed. Elizium23 (talk) 14:08, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

How is it unsourced? It's well-covered and sourced in the article body, and the WP:LEAD is a summary of that, as it should be. Elizium23, the lead does not have references, as the references are in the article body, where they belong. And how do we know what she is drawn to? That's why we have the artistry section, which talks about it. If one bothers to read the whole article and see the sources, one would not blindly remove information. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 14:11, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Also, best known for her film appearances? That's not FA-quality writing. There's always room for improvement but bad-faith removals in which editors don't bother to read the article is what's unfair. If one has a better way of writing something, we can do it more collaboratively. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 14:17, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Pinging Aoba47, Moisejp, ArturSik, and HJ Mitchell who participated in the FAC for their inputs. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 14:13, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

• Hi Krimuk2.0, I agree that it goes without saying that the sources shouldn't be in the lead but should be in the main text. I'd like to fully support you for the disagreement about this particular statement, but I'm afraid I'm quite busy right now. Could I ask you to identify the specific sources and passages in these sources that support the statement? This will help me to quickly agree with your side of things. Thanks very much! Moisejp (talk) 20:29, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Moisejp, I'd refer you to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, which says, "The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged... should be supported by an inline citation. Any statements about living persons that are challenged or likely to be challenged must have an inline citation every time they are mentioned, including within the lead."

Thanks. Her work in period pieces is covered in several references throughout the article, particularly here, here, and here. Her propensity for tragic roles is covered here and here, among others. The fact that she is drawn to playing "troubled" women can be found here and here. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:26, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

I can't see the wording you are referring to. Could you please include some quotes from these articles to back up your statements? Deb (talk) 15:52, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Obviously the wording's not going to be the same, that would be WP:PLAGIARISM. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 19:06, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

• The wording won't be the same, but could you provide passages from these sources that can be paraphrased/summarized as saying that she is particularly known for her work in period dramas and tragedies, and is often drawn to portraying troubled women? Thanks! Moisejp (talk) 22:07, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

• This says "Winslet solidified her burgeoning reputation for taking period roles".
• In this she talks says "And I kept being drawn to these characters that were so strong and interesting in the period pieces"
• This says "Winslet is well-versed in period dramas"
• This calls her a "period and corset drama mainstay"
• This talks about how "Winslet "gravitates toward troubling roles in smaller films", typically those of "thorny, potentially unsympathetic" women.
• This says "chiefly, Winslet's been drawn to serious, almost despairing material" and talks about her work in "bleak dramas"
• This talks about her being drawn to "unsentimentalized, restless, troubled, discontented, disconcerted, difficult women" and she quotes that she likes to play "angst-ridden women".
• And that's to quote a few. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:08, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Maybe the problem is with your English. You've taken the words "I kept being drawn to these characters that were so strong and interesting" and you've changed that to suggest she is drawn to "troubled" women, which is not at all the same thing. Nor is "troubling roles" the same as "troubled women". The Time article mentions "troubled" women but doesn't mention her being drawn to them, not does it use the term "angst-ridden". "Thorny, potentially unsympathetic" also isn't similar to "troubled". I'll give you the fact she has a "reputation" in period roles, but that doesn't mean she is mainly known for them, and where does "tragedy" come into it? What you've done is, at best, WP:SYNTH. Deb (talk) 12:32, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

The problem is not with my English, and you are not allowed to make WP:PERSONALATTACKS. Also, you missed the entire point because the sources don't spoon-feed you the exact same word. Also, if you miss "angst-ridden" it's because you won't take the trouble to press next page. Another example of spoon-feeding. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 13:31, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Krimuk2.0, do you understand what WP:SYNTH means? Deb (talk) 14:20, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I know what Wikipedia:What SYNTH is not. Anyway, I did try to tweak the wording to "She is particularly known for her work in period dramas, and is often drawn to portraying angst-ridden women", but hey, that met with a grotesque abuse of power. Clearly, someone who talks about policy should first read WP:INVOLVED. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 14:23, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Please discuss any new proposals/wording (that are associated with this section) on "this talk page" first and only add them when you have consensus. --DBigXrayᗙ 19:29, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

@Krimuk2.0: Apologies for jumping into this discussion and for the late response to the ping. From my understanding, Winslet was very much connected with period films at one point in her career, even earning the nickname "Corset Kate" (which is supported by these two Los Angeles Times articles: 1 and 2). I think the "She is particularly known for her work in period dramas" part is pretty well-covered by sources. Maybe the addition of the "Corset Kate" moniker to the article will help to further support this? She seems to have largely moved away from that persona to diversify her work, but again, publications, including those quoted above by Krimuk2.0, still go back to these period piece roles. Unfortunately, I am not qualified enough to comment on the troubled women and tragedies parts. Aoba47 (talk) 22:58, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

It seems there's consensus that, at least at one point in her career, she has been very known for her roles in period films. Hmm, but the other dispute between Krimuk and Deb about troubled women and tragedies is more nuanced. Like Aoba, I feel I'm unfortunately unable to easily take sides. Moisejp (talk) 06:43, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time out and commenting, Aoba47 and Moisejp. I've taken out the "tragedy" bit and currently the text reads, "She is particularly known for her work in period dramas, and is often drawn to portraying angst-ridden women." The latter part is from a quote here. Is that better? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:53, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I think it's really important to note that she's primarily a film actress, and most of her period work has been in films, yet this isn't mentioned - the sentence as it stands could mean that she performs these roles in the theatre and TV, which she doesn't. The wording, "She is best known for her film appearances, particularly in period dramas", would be better. As for "angst-ridden women", it's much better than "troubled women", which you previously refused to change.Deb (talk) 10:00, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I did not refuse to change it. I stood up to your bullying tactics in which you swept in and removed information without bothering to read the article, discuss the issue politely, or pay heed to WP:STATUSQUO. As for the other point, we could simply say that she is "particularly known for her work in period drama films", which solves the issue you mention. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 10:14, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

You edit-warred. And this is the last time I will put up with a personal attack from you. Deb (talk) 10:16, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

The only personal attack came from you, and fyi, two people edit-war. One can't edit war with himself. All I did was follow policy outlined at WP:STATUSQUO which explicitly states that "During a dispute discussion, until a consensus is established, you should not revert away from the status quo". Krimuk2.0 (talk) 10:20, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Yet that's exactly what you've done. Don't waste your time wikilawyering, I've seen it all before. Deb (talk) 15:58, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Requested changing of the descriptive phrase 'angst ridden women'

{{edit semi-protected

I am requesting a change to the first sentence of this page written below, specifically the use of the phrase 'angst ridden women' in this context.

'Kate Elizabeth Winslet CBE (born 5 October 1975) is an English actress. She is particularly known for her work in period dramas, and is often drawn to portraying angst-ridden women.'

Specifically the descriptive phrase 'angst ridden women'. This is for a number of reasons, firstly it is inaccurate. Kate Winslet has played a number of emotionally complex, empowered and strong women. Her performances are realistic representations of women dealing with a variety of challenges in the real world. For example, April Wheeler in Revolutionary Road. Therefore the phrase 'angst ridden women' very much belittles her many acclaimed and award winning performances of complex and interesting women. Secondly, the phrase 'angst ridden males' does not appear to describe any male actors on wikipedia pages and is much less commonly used in society. Therefore, I would draw the comparison with the description of a female leader as 'bossy' rather than 'assertive', when male leaders are rarely described as 'bossy' and often described as assertive.

Therefore I suggest that the description should instead be the following:

'Kate Elizabeth Winslet CBE (born 5 October 1975) is an English actress. She is particularly known for her work in period dramas, and is often drawn to portraying emotionally complex women in unique and challenging situations.' }} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sophieminz (talk • contribs) 19:04, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 January 2021

There is a reference to Kate Winslet in author and journalist Elizabeth Day's book "How To Fail" on page 60 about Day having an awkward interview with her. 2A00:23C6:6AC6:A401:49C3:9CF9:445D:4FC1 (talk) 23:21, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Jack Frost (talk) 08:55, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Citation needed

@Jgwikid: could you explain this edit where you removed a source and added a citation needed tag next to another source? Thanks. Elizium23 (talk) 01:19, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

• Of course. As a former pro swimmer I know what does it mean 1 min without breath so 7 is just an alien performance. I immediately checked sources mentioned to confirm if they know what they write about & what they write in the first place. Source removed does not confirm the claim. There is one source left and this source is totally unreliable with the claim (they simply have no idea what they talk about). --Jgwikid (talk) 23:27, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Personal life

In her interview, she also denounced biphobia in Hollywood, she said she knows a “well-known” actor who just got a new agent, and that agent told the client, “I understand you are bisexual. I wouldn’t publicize that.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:A62E:4900:CC83:93C9:1ED1:74CE (talk) 10:32, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 May 2021

Remove "often plays angst-ridden women." This is misogynistic, speaks to the limited view of what women are allowed to be. She just plays women. 2603:8000:DC01:41C3:CC0C:FF65:FD84:F8B1 (talk) 01:38, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. In addition, the article actually states: Winslet has said she is interested in playing "angst-ridden women" with strong dispositions masking flaws and insecurities. Bsoyka (talk · contribs) 03:31, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 June 2021

In the Acting credits and accolades section there is atypical where Winslet is incorrectly spent see below

“narrating the children's audiobook Listen to the Storyteller (1999).[62][94] Winselt is the recipient of four Golden Globe Awards from the Hollywood Foreign Press Association, winning” Expenses (talk) 23:27, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

 Done Elizium23 (talk) 01:05, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 June 2021

Remove that Kate Winslet won the Triple Crown of Acting — she does not have a Tony Award, she has a Grammy, that doesn’t qualify for the Triple Crown 24.193.10.1 (talk) 06:00, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:14, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Peacock terms

This article is a stunning hagiography, with WP:PEACOCK terms like "the finest of her generation" and "blockbuster films", painting a picture of someone who is not so much human as a celebrity demigod on a pedestal of adulation. I've tagged appropriately. Elizium23 (talk) 16:35, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

@Trngo: has added this book which is published by Rutgers University Press and edited by a notable Canadian film scholar. This is good sourcing for the moniker. There's plenty more work to be done regarding the overall tone. Elizium23 (talk) 04:57, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

• @Elizium23: If possible, could you please list more examples of this so that way the issue can be addressed? It would be nice if there was just more information so that way editors can really engage with this discussion and help to improve the article further. Thank you in advance! Aoba47 (talk) 20:06, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Elizium23 is completely right and this has been raised previously. Deb (talk) 20:39, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

• @Deb: To be absolutely clear, I am not saying that Elizium23 is wrong. My question was more so to get further information in case any interested editor wants to work on this in the future. I think it is always best to provide examples and just further information in general. If you do not think the article meets FA status, there is always Wikipedia:Featured article review. I am not suggesting that this article is brought there or anything. I just wanted to raise that to people's attention. Aoba47 (talk) 20:51, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 July 2021

Can we please change the photo? It's a bad quality photo that does not focus on her face. Wikiapriljune55 (talk) 04:18, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done. Unfortunately, this is the best image of her that is available under a free license. You're free to look through commons:Category:Kate Winslet and see if there's one that you'd like to use. See Wikipedia:Uploading images for more info. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 06:31, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

British Actress

Dear colleagues, I believe the word "British" is more suitable at the beginning of the article. As far as I know she is also Irish and Swedish. Oligarx2 (talk) 18:19, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. She has Irish ancestry, and British is clearly most appropriate, given her nationality. The only way an ‘English’ descriptor could be supported is if reliable sources typically described her that way, and there is no citation within the article that does so, nor any discussion on the talk page, as far as I can see. So I have made the edit. MapReader (talk) 18:37, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

In this interview for Steve Jobs she refers to herself as English.

This is an encyclopaedia; how people refer to themselves is of very little weight. Her description in reliable media sources is what matters. MapReader (talk) 19:53, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

References

Since she was born in England, I think that English should be used in the lead instead. Most celebrities born in England have their nationality listed as English in the lead, so I think this should apply here as well. Therefore, the lead and categories should be changed back to English from British. 2001:569:78BA:4A00:D9E6:1364:870A:3538 (talk) 01:42, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography: "There is no preference between describing a person as British rather than as English, Scottish, or Welsh. Decisions on which label to use should be determined through discussions and consensus. The label must not be changed arbitrarily. To come to a consensus, editors should consider how reliable sources refer to the subject, particularly UK reliable sources, and consider whether the subject has a preference on which nationality they identify by." The last part implicity invokes MOS:IDENTITY. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 19:41, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

There is a Britannica article about her describing her nationality as English. Not sure if the source is completely reliable though.

Here's another source describing her nationality as English.

An actor's identity is important to their brand, we also have on Wiki many British actors who identify as one of the home nations and this should be reflected in the lede. As well as Kate being described as English by third party sources.Halbared (talk) 18:03, 26 September 2021 (UTC) So Kate's comment on her Englishness illustrate how important this brand is in the USA, her 'Englishness' automatically granted her a level of professionalism. It's what she is know for, which is why multiple sources reference her as English.Halbared (talk) 08:25, 27 September 2021 (UTC) After looking at the guide on UK nationals; Wikipedia:Nationality of people from the United Kingdom#Guide_to_finding_UK_nationality it says, Look specifically for evidence that the person has a preferred nationality.Halbared (talk) 08:52, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 December 2021

The phonetic transcription of the the surname is incorrect. The -e- in the surname, currently rendered as [ɛ] should be transliterated into IPA as a schwa [ə], as it is an unstressed syllable in Kate's British English. Change ɛ to ə in the IPA rendering of the surname. DenisHent (talk) 12:04, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

That's true. I've made the change. Deb (talk) 14:04, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

TV series The Little Drummer Girl

Kate’s starring role in this has been missed out. 2A01:CB1E:6C:9269:CD12:F368:CAAB:DEAB (talk) 20:29, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Offensive referrals to weight

I find it offensive that this entry contains frequent references to Kate Winslet's weight. It is rare for men to have commentary on their changing body size across their childhood and professional career. Please revisit this entry and remove the references to weight.

I have heard Ms Winslet herself describe the many ways in which her body weight has been a focus of public discussion that has caused her pain and unfair professional prejudice. Wikipedia should not be a place where prejudice and hurtful speech is perpetuated. Me too. 2603:3016:1E6B:4600:74D6:B0FA:53D7:A4BF (talk) 17:51, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

"It is rare for men to have commentary on their changing body size" ==> have you read Christian Bale's article? Let's not minimise sexism and discrimination by focussing on things that don't matter. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:00, 7 March 2024 (UTC)