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 statut oe 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)

OK, thank you for providing the relevant citizenship law. Obviously this complicates things. Unlike previous editors who have taken this up, you seem to have actually read the article (others didn't seem to notice that her mother was from Philadelphia). I still think it's implicit that she has acquired U.S. citizenship at some point because of her political activities (non-citizen residents of the U.S. generally don't stick themselves into this sort of thing). A U.S. passport would probably make her travel schedule much easier, too. I also note that during her early years in New York, she was twice dismissed from jobs yet wasn't deported (granted, this doesn't necessarily prove anything, as plenty of people have overstayed visas in that circumstance)

We could (and this wouldn't be original research) look at the voter rolls in either New York or Suffolk County and see if she's registered (assuming Greenwich Village and Mastic Beach are her only residences) and since when. I am willing to change the wording (Originally, it had been something closer to "English immigrants to the United States" because that article (I think) existed at the time; it's subsequently been merged to the current article.

As far as "assiduously micromanaging" this article goes, I do it for three reasons: one, it's on my watchlist; two it's a biography of a living person and is thus supposed to be closely watched per that policy; two, I put a lot of work into researching and writing this and consider it a responsibility to maintain the article's integrity. Daniel Case (talk) 14:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Followup: I have changed the wording and categorization to reflect her mixed national background as long as we cannot confirm her citizenship. Searching on this issue hasn't yielded anything more than two blog posts: [1], [2], which seem to know even less than we do. Daniel Case (talk) 18:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

It certainly seems probable that she is a citizen. I suppose this sort of problem is to be expected when writing about someone as private as Anna Wintour. Checking the electoral rolls sounds like a good idea and I'll look into that. I know I'm not the only person who appreciates the diligence and attention to detail of editors like you. 87.194.181.170 (talk) 11:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Forbes lists her as a U.S. citizen here. Seems to settle this. How she became a citizen is less important. Daniel Case (talk) 13:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

If she's an American citizen, why was she awarded an OBE by the Queen? Sorry just curious here.210.24.86.146 (talk) 05:14, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't pretend to know the exactitudes here, but I don't see how those are incompatible. Presumably she's still a British citizen as well and I would think that's all that matters. If Christopher Guest can be a peer of the realm yet still be an American citizen, I think Anna Wintour can have her honor as well. Daniel Case (talk) 05:56, 14 December 2011 (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://wiki.riteme.site/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)

Dropped out of school at 16?

When Anna Wintour was 16, that would have been perceived as a legitimate school leaving age, particularly for someone who didn't intend to go to college. The standard school leaving ages in the UK were 16 or 18; so unless she didn't bother with O levels or CSE's it's not really fair to say that she "dropped out" which to an American reader has the connotation of failing to graduate high-school, a concept that doesn't really translate across the Atlantic. pcr^talk 06:11, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Point noted, and I'll reword. I don't know about her O levels or CSE. Details of her early life are sketchy outside of Oppenheimer's book, and he uses the term since he's an American. But he does suggest that she chose not to finish classes at North London. Daniel Case (talk) 19:02, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I know nothing about Anna Wintour, but may I strongly support what pcr said above. Sixteen was the normal, most usual, school-leaving age in the UK in the 50s and 60s. North London Collegiate is and was a highly academic school, so one presumes that Wintour took a number of Ordinary Level GCE (General Certificate of Education) exams, and then, because she did not wish to go on into the sixth-form, left. This was not 'dropping out' at all, but the normal course of action for those who did not plan to go to University. Far, far fewer people went on to University at that time anyway. Those who had good 'O' level results had many job opportunities open to them at 16, as well as further education opportunities in vocational institutions such as art schools and secretarial colleges. Plenty of pupils left school at 16 without any 'O' levels whatever — and even they could get jobs in those days! Sixth form and the academically challenging 'A' Level exams (Advanced Level GCE) were for those who planned university and/or a more scholarly type of eventual career. It was all very different from today's system in the UK, let alone that of the USA. AgTigress (talk) 12:16, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Again, the only source on this is Oppenheimer's book, and as noted he may not understand the historical intricacies of the British educational system. He conveys the impression that when she left, it was with no documentation whatsoever indicating that she had completed the NCLS course of study, no OLGCE. Without another source we can only say that she did not complete her studies at NLCS and began working in fashion instead at 16. Daniel Case (talk) 16:49, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough; obviously none of us knows for certain!  :) But even if she left at 16 without even taking any 'O' levels (which seems slightly unlikely at that date in a direct grant school, though not at all unusual in a Secondary Modern or Comprehensive school), or having failed any that she did take, she was still not 'dropping out' in the American sense of 'not completing' her education: she was simply 'leaving school' at the standard minimum legal age for doing so, with or without any GCE qualifications. (I think that by 1965, the minimum age was 16: when I was at school, about a decade earlier, it was still 15). It does sound to me as though the author of the biography simply did not understand the British system at that time, and assumed that leaving school at that age was abnormal and/or shameful, when it was actually quite common and unremarkable for a pupil whose interests were other than academic. I bet Vivienne Westwood doesn't have a bunch of 'O' Levels either. I shall now go and look her up (she is the same age as I am)!  :) AgTigress (talk) 21:48, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, her father was a major newspaper editor at the time, and himself a Cambridge alum. I assume he probably would have liked her to go on to university, but he seems to have been supportive of her decision to do otherwise (supposedly one of the great divides between her and the slightly younger Tina Brown is that the latter has a degree from Oxford.

From an American perspective leaving school at 16, then as now, is perfectly legal but even then the term had a bit of a stigma (we once had her categorized as a high-school dropout but then that category was deleted for the implied pejorative). The question is, I guess, are there other Old North Londoners of that era who chose a similar career start? Daniel Case (talk) 03:11, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but I feel sure that the ethos of North London Collegiate was chiefly to encourage girls to develop their own particular talents to a high degree, rather than to force them into a career that did not interest them. If an individual's talents lay in an academic direction, this meant university, even though, as I have mentioned, the proportion of school-leavers who went on to university was much, much smaller in the 1960s than it is now (there were far fewer universities, for a start). Also, universities did not yet teach the more vocational types of courses that are commonplace these days. It is hard to see why any reasonable person would have expected a degree in traditional humanities subjects to have substantially enhanced the career prospects of an individual whose interests lay in fashion and popular culture. The same applies to those whose future careers were in acting or in the fine arts. Also, maybe Wintour's father, who belonged to a class and generation that would have seen Oxbridge as a standard social rite of passage for males rather than a proof of academic excellence, was one of the many who still thought that university education was unnecessary and otiose for women. There are complex issues of social history and class involved here.

It's quite possible that Wintour did indeed have a disastrous academic record at secondary school and left without a single 'O' Level to her name, but my point is simply that the fact that she left at 16 does not, in itself, imply that at all. She might equally well have had 8 or 9 excellent 'O' level passes, for all we know. There were undoubtedly many girls who left North London Collegiate and other comparable schools (such as St.Paul's Girls' School, Haberdashers' Aske's Acton (as it then was), Camden High School for Girls, James Alleyn's Girls' School, etc. etc.), in the 1950s and 1960s who went straight into employment at 16 and then went on to become highly successful in their chosen fields without formal tertiary education. General employment opportunities were lavish at that period — there was plenty of work available. One of the things that all such Old Girls (and Old Boys of the equivalent boys' schools) had in common at that time was a high degree of natural intelligence, because they wouldn't have got into those schools at age 11 without it, and of general literacy, which was determinedly taught throughout the 5-7 years they were there. Even without a single pass in a public examination, they were generally able to write more coherently than some young people today who have higher degrees...

Anyway, you get the point.  :) There is nothing that I can see, from the perspective of exactly the same culture and a slightly older generation, in the bare facts that we have about Wintour's adolescence, that implies that she was in any way 'unsuccessful' at school, and left at 16 for that reason. :) AgTigress (talk) 10:17, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

And rereading the article, I don't see a need to reword since I simply wrote that she "left", which satisfies a British understanding of that word in that context (but does, to American readers, carry a connotation of having found oneself not up to snuff academically when applied to secondary education (by contrast, saying you left college doesn't always, not when you (or someone else) left Harvard to start a business that became successful). Nothing I can do about that. I didn't make any statements about her academic record at NLCS, because Oppenheimer doesn't (he didn't seem to have any of that information, unsurprisingly). It is in his book, and I consider it relevant, that she disliked the dress code there intensely (I didn't put it in the article since I didn't think it relevant enough to her life as a whole, but apparently one side effect of that is that she doesn't (or for a long time didn't) like wearing anything in the shade of brown that the school's uniforms were in at that time).

Do you think we should find some way of providing the context you have in the article text? Daniel Case (talk) 15:01, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that anything in the article needs to be altered, and it seems to me an excellent, objective article overall. I just weighed in, really, in support of the contributor who noted that 'dropping out' was not an appropriate term, and as that is no longer in the article anyway, I was just adding some extra information. Naturally Wintour hated the school uniform: all girls at those kinds of schools have ALWAYS hated the uniform, which had essentially changed very little since the 1920s, even if they are planning to become dull old academics rather than celebrities in the world of fashion! :) Assuming North London Collegiate was like my own school in that era (and I'm sure it was), the rules relating to the uniform were exceedingly strict, covering not only the styles and colours of the garments, but also details like exact skirt length, style of shoes, and the angle at which hats (felt in the winter, panama in the summer) were to be worn. My own uniform was a much nicer colour than North London's brown, but I still cannot bear to wear that colour today, over 50 years after I left the institution. No jewellery was permitted, with the exception of wristwatches and, rather grudgingly, a religious pendant such as a cross or Star of David, and hairstyles were also carefully scrutinised; they had to be 'off the face' and tidy.

I don't think any of the information I have waffled about here needs to go into the article. If I had attended North London Collegiate itself rather than a very similar school, specific points about it would probably be worth adding. I suppose one could make a general point that in the 1960s, the very strict traditionalism of that type of school would have been particularly galling to a young person who wanted to be part of all the changes that were taking place in social mores, fashion and popular culture — even more galling than it had been to those of us who were teenagers in the generally much more austere and non-swinging 1950s.  :) AgTigress (talk) 16:11, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

new section

Hello- I have been researching a little known controversy and since it involves Anna Wintour I decided to make a place for it on the page where criticisms already appear. I have tried to keep it as short, dry, and unbiased as possible, though I agree with the force of the criticism, that a vogue editor should have known better. I will watch here for comments in case anyone wants added details or sources hat I may be able to add from my research. Ultimately I hope it contributes to interesting reading, drawing more users to Wikipedia.124.157.179.70 (talk) 08:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the effort, but I'm afraid we can't use much of this due to the lack of reliable sources. Two of them are blogs, and we're very averse to using blogs as sources. The Daily Mail article is the only thing we might be able to cite, and that really doesn't go into the controversy. Nor is this really as significant as the other ongoing controversies I wrote about. It might be better to find some reliable reportage (perhaps something in a French news outlet?) and put it in the Hotel Crillon article. Daniel Case (talk) 16:46, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you do not know the importance of Haute Couture verses Pret au Porter, but I assure you that it is very serious if a Vogue editor of so many years does not know the difference. In fact it is far more important than some of the Oppenheimer gossip about personalities. I feel your unilateral decision to remove the factual details of Anna Wintours attendence at Le Bal du Crillon (which is appropriately cited on the organizers website, and news channels) to be improper. Whether or not the informative / educational link to a blog about haute couture is included does not matter. There is a similar version on Wikipedia actually which could be substituted... the key is that fashion industry persons, and those researching Anna Wintour from the fashion world point of view would find it interesting to know that she participated in a bogus haute couture event. The facts are that she attended a bogus event about Haute Couture. The scandal speaks for itself.I think a third party should adjudicate the decision. maybe an even more dry statement can be added about her attending.70.89.102.53 (talk) 20:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Again, the issue is the reliability of the sources, and our policy is clear and unambiguous: "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable. " And without that blog post there's nothing for us to say.

I should say also that I have not found anyone else writing about this. I don't doubt that you think this very important. It may well be. But we are not the publisher of first instance for this sort of thing. Daniel Case (talk) 04:47, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

My little pony FiM

I noticed that the character Photo Finish is based on her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.72.71.179 (talk) 07:44, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Neutral intro?

"With her trademark (trademark?) pageboy bob haircut and sunglasses, Wintour has become an institution (what does this mean? according to who?) throughout the fashion world, widely praised (by who?) for her eye for fashion trends and her support for younger designers. Her reportedly (by who?) aloof and demanding personality has earned her the nickname "Nuclear Wintour". I don't find much support for that later in the article.

Per WP:LEDE the intro section should "explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points." I don't see how the intro, as is, is out of line with that, as it's meant to be general without going into specifics. A statement that someone is "widely praised" is not an NPOV violation in itself, and there is a fair amount of cited praise in the article.

I suppose I could find plenty of reliable sources using exactly those words if you really wanted (or maybe you could have been a real Wikipedian and gone and found some yourself. As for her "aloof and demanding personality," there is an entire section, with many footnotes. "Reportedly" is to preserve NPOV, something you seemed to care about when you started posting. Perhaps you were so eager to get over here and make sure that everyone could see your brilliant editorial comments that you forgot to read that far? So eager that you forgot to sign your post? Daniel Case (talk) 03:02, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Is this link useful or useless?

I say there's a useless link in the "Film Adaptation" section that promises "External images: Photos comparing Wintour's office and Miranda Priestly's in The Devil Wears Prada" but when I click on it I just get a page that says "Nothing found for Blog wp-content office jpg." I say that's not at all useful, but two other people "Daniel Case" and "Eyesnore" put it back in when I took it out. Anybody else have an opinion on how useful that link is? Greenbeanhunting (talk) 00:45, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

If you'd explained that it's a dead link in the edit summary when you'd removed it, all would have been understood. Daniel Case (talk) 01:18, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Is this a press release?

With her trademark pageboy bob haircut and sunglasses, Wintour has become an important figure in much of the fashion world, widely praised for her eye for fashion trends and her support for younger designers. Her reportedly aloof and demanding personality has earned her the nickname "Nuclear Wintour".

I'm sorry but that reads ridiculous and has no sources to any of those claims. Who has widely praised her? Who says she is important? And the word reportedly, reportedly by whom? Where is a source for her nickname? Is her pageboy bob really trademarked?

Also the following-She is the eldest daughter of Charles Wintour, editor of the London Evening Standard. Her father consulted her on how to make the newspaper relevant to the youth of the era.

So she was a newspaper consultant? I find it hard to believe that her Father,a grown man, would consult a youth on how to make a newspaper relevant to anyone. Where are sources for this? I guess I will start looking for sources and removing non sourced statements tomorrow. If anyone wants to help please help me. I have only read 2 paragraphs on this Wikipedia page about Anna Wintour, so I am wondering what else needs to be fixed. I will read more tomorrow.--98.87.94.167 (talk) 18:02, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, you could have asked me, per the {{maintained}} template at the top of this page. Everything in that intro is repeated—often in greater detail in the article—and sourced to the best of my recollection. The general rule is that we don't footnote something in the intro section unless it's an extraordinary claim (like "the most ...", "the oldest ..."—that sort of thing), unless that's the only place in the article it appears. See WP:LEADCITE. Daniel Case (talk) 19:57, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

So, no one gets to make additions or changes then?

Despite the piece being full of fluff, my added paragraph, which was timely and had references, was removed because Daniel Case "didn't see the relevance"? Does that end the discussion? I thought that there was supposed to BE a discussion? I'm seeing this a lot--basically, "how dare you touch MY article." Avocats (talk) 09:06, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

@Avocats: See WP:BRD ... this is how it's supposed to happen. I have no problem discussing that revert further if asked, and the newer version of the graf looks better and as such, I can see the relevance. A lot of people add sourced yet relatively trivial items to this page that I usually remove because, well, Anna Wintour going out to get groceries doesn't tell us anything about her. But now I see the relevance of this ... that the Kardashians are not the sort of people she used to put on the cover, no matter how famous they would get. Daniel Case (talk) 15:34, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Anna Wintour. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081220170043/http://www.telegraph.co.uk:80/fashion/3355862/The-Devil-has-all-the-best-costumes.html to http://www.telegraph.co.uk/fashion/3355862/The-Devil-has-all-the-best-costumes.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090614065406/http://www.nydailynews.com:80/archives/gossip/2006/05/02/2006-05-02_author_goes_from__prada__to_.html to http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/gossip/2006/05/02/2006-05-02_author_goes_from__prada__to_.html

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

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

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:03, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 7 external links on Anna Wintour. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071119020206/http://www.metmuseum.org:80/Press_Room/full_release.asp?prid=%7B44C504B8-C28F-11D3-936E-00902786BF44%7D to http://www.metmuseum.org/Press_Room/full_release.asp?prid={44C504B8-C28F-11D3-936E-00902786BF44}
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090323021858/http://www.nypost.com:80/pagesixmag/issues/20090111/Will+Fashion+Queen+Anna+Wintour+Lose+Her+Crown to http://www.nypost.com/pagesixmag/issues/20090111/Will+Fashion+Queen+Anna+Wintour+Lose+Her+Crown
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090423013032/http://www.nypost.com:80/seven/11182008/gossip/pagesix/restless_anna_139201.htm to http://www.nypost.com/seven/11182008/gossip/pagesix/restless_anna_139201.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100504173830/http://www.independent.co.uk:80/arts-entertainment/films/news/nuclear-wintour-the-movie-404514.html to http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/nuclear-wintour-the-movie-404514.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090707225055/http://www.nypost.com:80/seven/05152007/news/regionalnews/devilish_plot_to_murder_wintour_regionalnews_laura_italiano.htm to http://www.nypost.com/seven/05152007/news/regionalnews/devilish_plot_to_murder_wintour_regionalnews_laura_italiano.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081224150503/http://www.nypost.com:80/seven/02122007/gossip/liz/virginia_gentleman_liz_liz_smith.htm?page=2 to http://www.nypost.com/seven/02122007/gossip/liz/virginia_gentleman_liz_liz_smith.htm?page=2
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120828180717/http://www.nytimes.com:80/2007/02/01/fashion/01WINTOUR.htm? to http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/01/fashion/01WINTOUR.htm

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

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

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:29, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Anna Wintour. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140826124438/http://www.macleans.ca/culture/films/article.jsp?content=20060701_130331_130331 to http://www.macleans.ca/culture/films/article.jsp?content=20060701_130331_130331
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120730155645/http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2007/05/15/2007-05-15_fiend_dream_to_slay_the_style_queen-3.html to http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2007/05/15/2007-05-15_fiend_dream_to_slay_the_style_queen-3.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20081224212535/http://www.monstersandcritics.com:80/people/news/article_1387861.php to http://www.monstersandcritics.com/people/news/article_1387861.php

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

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

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:39, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Anna Wintour citizenship

Winter is British by birth but also holds U.S. citizenship via "parentage". These links confirm:

• "Obama supporter Anna Wintour reportedly considered for ambassadorial post by administration"
• "Anna Wintour, Rest of City Turn Out to Vote"
• U.S., Departing Passenger and Crew Lists, 1914-1965 for Anna Wintour New York A4169 - New York, 1948-1956 141 (Anna Wintour, described as US citizen “through parentage”) on “Country of which Citizen or Subject” category
• New York, Passenger Lists, 1820-1957 Roll T715, 1897-1957 8001-8892 Roll 8012 -- Eleanor, James, and Anna Wintour entries stamped “U.S. CIT.”
• UK, Outward Passenger Lists, 1890-1960 for Anna Wintour Southampton 1951 July -- Entries for Charles, Eleanor, James and Anna Wintour on “Country of which Citizen or Subject” category given as “U.S.A.”

I am persuaded by the first two links alone. The Hollywood Reporter explicitly states this (whatever our anonymous Thai friend seems to think), and notes that she's naturalized, which would seem to moot the question at the top of this talk page. The second clearly implies it ... if she can vote in the U.S. she must be a citizen. Daniel Case (talk) 17:52, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

At last, a voice of reason. Quis separabit? 17:56, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Anna Wintour. 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/20110708113339/http://www.camdennewjournal.com/news/2010/may/former-camden-town-hall-director-jim-wintour-%E2%80%98quit-over-pension%E2%80%99-housing-boss-feared-n to http://www.camdennewjournal.com/news/2010/may/former-camden-town-hall-director-jim-wintour-%E2%80%98quit-over-pension%E2%80%99-housing-boss-feared-n

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 15:27, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Anna Wintour. 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/20061128222851/http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2005/0504.larson2.html to http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2005/0504.larson2.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090228183841/http://arp.tv/production.html?production=septissue to http://www.arp.tv/production.html?production=septissue
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090829062322/http://www.slantmagazine.com/film/film_review.asp?ID=4472 to http://www.slantmagazine.com/film/film_review.asp?ID=4472
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071114152307/http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_375745.html to http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_375745.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: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:53, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Infobox photo

I've not participated in this article at all, but for what it's worth, I wonder why the current infobox photo has been chosen over others such as this one:

This one shows Winter's face much more clearly. I understand that her sunglasses are part of a trademark look, but even then, the current photo of her on her cell phone is a profile view that doesn't show much of her face. I know how sensitive editors can get over this so I don't want to start some sort of war, but I do wonder what the value of the current photo is versus the above one I've pointed out (albeit the latter being 3 years older). --Drown Soda (talk) 03:46, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

That's exactly it. I replaced that one with the current photo because it's the most recent we have. Generally we try to have relatively current photos of living people. I haven't found any more recent images of her that are appropriately licensed. If you can persuade someone who's uploaded an image of her to Flickr recently to release the rights, by all means do. Daniel Case (talk) 04:22, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Anna Wintour - created fashion to what it is today?

I planned to talk about each of the sources and how each source adds further information about Anna Wintour and her decisions have impacted fashion trends.

The article mentions how Wintour is to be described as being 'integral to the future of the company's transformation', starting trends such as 'she has love for the company deeply'. Her journey of being editor-in-chief and a journalist of Vogue since 1988. Being listed as one of the most important/powerful women in the fashion industry.

As we all know Wintour as being the woman who has a dominant say in the trends set within the '113-year-old brand'she has seized the moment and it become the'women's bible'. Anna Wintour brought her journalistic 'bent' and infused Vogue with news, culture to fashion via photo spreads for example in 1998, 'The Extraordinary Hillary Clinton' cover after the Lewinsky scandal. Her ideology behind doing risky content as such was "This is our readers' leisure time. Why should it be boring?" Beth Fidoten who is a senior VP-director of print services,states about Wintour when she started at Vogue she 'revitalized it'.

Her 'steely demeanour and chilling reputation' recognises the pressure that is associated with social media and can lead to mental health problems. She speaks on the matter on the interview with Stella magazine, apart of the Telegraph, how her support with Youth Anxiety Center. She quoted "Mental health is an area where people are embarrassed."

HAlI290 (talk) 14:16, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

References

possibly in need of a GAR

I'm not sure how we can call an article a GA if it has an entire section devoted to criticism for... being personally withdrawn? and a 'responses' section? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 06:38, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Can't see the issue myself. In any case GA standards are pretty flexible in my experience. Johnbod (talk) 14:41, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

That was, back around the time I first wrote this, a frequently voiced criticism, and it drew responses, both in reliable sources. Like John, I don't think it warrants a GAR, but I would agree that maybe times have changed (today, Wintour is known more for the Met gala than being Vogue's editor, even though that's still her day job) and as some of the people who work with her have allowed, she's mellowed out (noted in the article, IIRC), so maybe we could adjust the section to reflect that (I must admit, I have not been able to keep this article up-to-date as I once was). Daniel Case (talk) 18:40, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

@Daniel Case and Johnbod: my thing is that some of these paragraphs focus solely on personality, and don't show relevance to her impact as an editor and trend-setter, or even her reputation. Sometimes personal goings-on do impact reputation, of course—the way Amy Klobuchar took heat leading up to an election for a story about the way she treated her staffers, or the way Will Smith was suspended from the Academy for the slapping incident. This is more of a personal bias, but I just don't see the value in this article serving as a re-reporting of celebrity-culture feedings that can't even show that kind of impact. In particular, why is the paragraph beginning Even friends admit to some trepidation in her presence important? Also, some parts are sourced to Page Six and the New York Post, neither of which should be considered reliable post-the latter's acquisition by Murdoch? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 00:24, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron: As I said, I wrote most of this in the late 2000s. The "Nuclear Wintour" thing was a big part of most coverage of her tenure at Vogue from her hiring through the rest of the 20th century, which was what gave The Devil Wears Prada (both book and film, especially given Meryl Streep's performance in the latter) a large part of its frisson. At the time that dominated the sources. At the time we did not have doubts about the reliability of either the Post or Page Six (Murdoch bought the former long before you were born, so long ago that I myself was still a child, and TBH IIRC it has only been in the last few years that serious doubts have been raised here about the Post's veracity on some matters, particularly those involving reporting about the police. And if Murdoch ownership is the sole determinant of reliability, then perhaps we should stop citing The Wall Street Journal?) Daniel Case (talk) 03:22, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

And The Times! As she ages, it is likely, fairly or not, that the personality issues and Streep's portrayal will become even more important, not less, in her reputation. Johnbod (talk) 13:54, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

@Daniel Case and Johnbod: it seems i was mistaken on this one. I'm still iffy on the Post (no firm dateline was ever set), but i'm happy to defer. Cheers, both of you! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 00:58, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron: The discussion I was thinking of was this RFC from two years ago Daniel Case (talk) 02:31, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

doesn't the closer say that it was more reliable in the period before it changed ownership in 1976? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 04:00, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

With all the respect I have for Dave, both from online and personal contact, I don't quite get that out of the discussion. If I have to use a year as a cutoff point, I'd note that most of the examples given are post-2010, and as someone who lives on the outer fringes of the New York metropolitan area and thus often sees (and occasionally thumbs through; I make a point of not buying it) the Post on newsracks in the course of my daily business, I concur that it's gotten more stridently right-wing and willing to color its coverage than it was even then ... in fact, since that RfC the Post alienated a lot of its own staff when it went all in on the Hunter Biden laptop story, which keeps looking more and more like some elaborate Russian disinformation scam, something I can't imagine the Post having stooped to even in 2012.

However, outside of subjects with a potential political valence, as other participants in that RfC noted, I still think their coverage is good ... I mean, the Daily News has taken the opposite political tack (really funny given that 50 years ago both papers were on opposite sides), and they're still a competitor to the Post in every way, so for regular old local news they have to play it straight. Daniel Case (talk) 05:14, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Wintour and Azzedine Alaïa feud

I wonder if someone can shed more light into Wintour and Azzedine Alaïa feud. Examples sources are Azzedine Alaïa Interview, Alaïa Pulls His Dresses From the Met Gala, Met Gala: Stephanie Seymour Will Stay Home, Too, and Naomi Campbell Didn’t Attend Anna Wintour’s Big Ball Because Azzedine Alaïa Got Snubbed FuzzyMagma (talk) 15:34, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

This isn’t the place to ask about that. On the other hand, if someone can find other reliable sources … Daniel Case (talk) 21:58, 23 April 2024 (UTC)