Talk:Taika Waititi

Merge proposal

The January proposal to merge List of awards and nominations received by Taika Waititi seems very sensible, as the topic is not independently notable and the primary topic page isn't sufficiently long to warrant a split. Klbrain (talk) 10:51, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

  Y Merger complete. Klbrain (talk) 21:13, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Marriage?

This page says he's married to Chelsea Winstanley, while her page says they separated in 2018. The provenance of the separation story looks to be Page Six, which seems...dubious. Thoughts? Marquardtika (talk) 14:21, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. We shouldn't state anything related to marriage statuses that's only supported by Page Six. KyleJoan^talk 13:57, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Name Pronunciation

The phonetics in the introduction indicate that the emphasis is on the second syllable in his last name, however the recording places the emphasis strongly on the first syllable. Which is correct?2601:547:900:AB10:F4EF:4953:64C5:DA23 (talk) 06:54, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Came here for another issue with name pronunciation. I'm not sure what the Wiki rules are so I thought I'd note it here instead. The pronunciation includes a schwa /ə/ which is how NZers typically pronounce his name and how Taika probably does too. But in Māori it's pronounced /ˈtaɪka/ as Māori doesn't reduce vowels in this way. See e.g, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA/M%C4%81ori and https://www.maoridictionary.co.nz/ Cameron.coombe (talk) 10:35, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Seperation + table of contents?

Two things - it's been dubiously reported that Waititi separated from his wife, but the story has also been picked up on by news.com.au and the New Zealand Herald. I think one of these stories also says that his wife tweeted something along the lines of "not my husband" referring to him. The second thing is that this page appears to be missing a table of contents - I can't template it in, but is there any reason it's not included?--Bettydaisies (talk) 03:25, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

I believe this edit solved the table of contents situation. Regarding the separation, both The New Zealand Herald and News.com.au attributed their respective articles to a Page Six report, which is generally unreliable for factual reporting in addition to being known for its lack of concern for fact-checking or corrections, including a number of examples of outright fabrication per WP:RSP. Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources per WP:EXCEPTIONAL, and I believe that marital statuses fall under this policy. His wife suggesting that they're separated also does not make the separation a verifiable fact, therefore, whether true or not, it should be kept off the article. KyleJoan^talk 04:57, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Loren Horsley

Waititi dated actress and writer, Loren Horsley, for, at least, 8 years (but probably longer). They also co-wrote the story for his first film. It should be added to the "personal life" section.

From the LA Times: "The creative team behind Miramax’s “Eagle” formed in 1995 when writer-director Taika Waititi met Clement at Victoria University of Wellington in New Zealand and they began performing sketch comedy together. Around this time, Waititi also met actress Loren Horsley, who became his longtime girlfriend and collaborator. " Link Helptottt (talk) 07:56, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Another reference: "Taika Waititi, 31, and Loren Horsley, 29, have been together for eight years" Link to the article from 2007 Helptottt (talk) 07:59, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Since it's not clear when they broke up, I corrected "eight years" to "longtime girlfriend", yet my edits still got arbitrarily removed without a reasonable explantion. Helptottt (talk) 08:04, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't appear to be more than a casual relationship, which fails WP:NOTNEWS. Every other reliable source I found only mentions it as a mere footnote in their collaboration on Eagle vs. Shark,[1][2][3] which is already stated in the "career" section. Why belabor the point? KyleJoan^talk 08:18, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

The relationship with Horsley is significant, despite your attempt to degrade it to simply "casual". There is no reason that a sentence about an almost decade long relationship should be left out of the article. Helptottt (talk) 08:28, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Great! Feel free to continue the discussion to obtain a consensus per WP:ONUS. Cheers! KyleJoan^talk 08:29, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Separation from Winstanley

The article needs to be updated. The personal life section is misleading. Waititi and Winstanley are clearly separated (for years), yet that also hasn't been added to the article.

Source.

Page Six is a tabloid, but more reliable than the likes of Daily Mail, etc. Also, publicists share information, which is probably the case in the Page Six article above.

In the article, it's also reported that Winstanley herself wrote on social media two years ago that he's not her husband.

Page Six is still being used as a reference on Wikipedia (currently, over 200 times), so I don't see why it couldn't be used here as well. Helptottt (talk) 12:44, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

There is consensus that Page Six is unreliable per WP:RSP. No reliable source means no inclusion. Other articles misusing Page Six does not mean more articles should do the same. True does not equal verifiable per WP:V. Next. KyleJoan^talk 12:54, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

If so many articles are misusing Page Six, why don't you remove them? Why are you gatekeeping this article? Helptottt (talk) 13:39, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

How about "According to multiple media reports, Winstanley and Waititi separated in 2018. They have never publicly confirmed a split." source Marquardtika (talk) 16:36, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

"According to multiple media reports..." seems the most fitting. The second sentence adds confusion. Helptottt (talk) 17:32, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

"According to multiple media reports..." fails WP:NOTNEWS. RSP says editors should consider whether the information from [E!] constitutes due or undue weight, especially when the subject is a living person. Does the information constitute due weight? Given that zero reliable sources have stated it, I say no. Why are we trying to include information that is not present in reliable sources? Regardless of whether Waititi and his wife are separated or not, it still would be inappropriate to include that he is dating Rita Ora. You do know that, right, Helptottt? In any case, including the supposed separation without multiple high-quality reliable sources is a BLP violation, and I'm going to continue to remove it per WP:PUBLICFIGURE. KyleJoan^talk 01:37, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree with KyleJoan. PageSix is unreliable. E! Online is questionable and DUE weight is a concern. Per BLP, we shouldn't include these claims unless and until they're widely published in reliable, BLP-compliant sources. Woodroar (talk) 02:04, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Literally no one added that he's dating Ora. The problem is that you, KyleJoan, are arbitrarily removing information from editors that are pointing out an obvious thing. At this point, keeping out that Waititi and Winstanley are separated is deliberately misleading. Especially since Waititi has publicly dated, at least, two people since his separation.

Many, many articles on Wikipedia include tabloid sources for separation confirmation for celebrities. Helptottt (talk) 08:00, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

I've just added a People magazine source, which is reliable per WP:RSP. There are other WP:RS noting the separation. I don't know why we could censor that here? See Stuff for another citation. Marquardtika (talk) 14:33, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Here's a couple of other sources to assess:

• Profile in Ensemble Magazine: "Although Chelsea planned to be in New Zealand this year for her documentary, the delays caused by Covid-19 have meant she and her former husband Taika Waititi had to make new plans for their daughters, Chelsea’s youngest two children, who will now join her in Aotearoa when their Dad’s work on Thor: Love and Thunder in Australia gets the go-ahead." https://www.ensemblemagazine.co.nz/articles/chelsea-winstanley
• Stuff: "Kiwi filmmakers Taika Waititi (Te Whānau-ā-Apanui) and Chelsea Winstanley (Ngāti Ranginui, Ngai Te Rangi), who are now separated, are selling their LA property" https://i.stuff.co.nz/life-style/homed/celebrity-homes/124194369/taika-waititi-and-chelsea-winstanley-sell-midcentury-la-home

Fences&Windows 14:43, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

No one was trying to censor information; the necessary reliable sourcing to state the separation wasn't presented (E! even linked the Daily Mail as its reference), so the discussion continued accordingly. It appears we now have the necessary sourcing to support that they are indeed separated. However, the year should be kept off the article until more reliable sources note it, especially since People, which is the only reliable source to have noted it, should not be used for contentious claims unless supplemented with a stronger source. I added the Stuff reference to the article. While the Ensemble Magazine profile specifies that Waititi was Winstanley's former husband, it does not specify their marital status. Two citations (i.e., 'People' and Stuff) seem sufficient at this time. KyleJoan^talk 15:25, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

While I'm glad we now have the separation in the article, I'm a bit befuddled by the edit summary here: "A source saying Waititi is Winstanley's 'ex-husband' does not verify a separation." What else would it mean? You can call it whatever you want. "They are no longer together" "They are no longer a couple" "They broke up" etc., etc. A spade is a spade. I added the NZ Herald source because it's a strong newspaper source. But no matter. The article is accurate now, thankfully. Marquardtika (talk) 15:29, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

I didn't think the discussion would involve etymology, but according to Merriam-Webster, an ex-husband is a man to whom one was formerly married. By that definition, should we state that Waititi and Winstanley are no longer married? KyleJoan^talk 15:42, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

While the phrase "ex-husband" suggests, as you pointed out, that they are no longer married, that is a stronger claim than that they are merely separated (eg. living separate lives). I tend to agree with Marquardtika here. "Ex-husband", "are separated", "have been separated since 2018" are all ways of saying they are no longer together.

Separately, I'll do some more research to see if we can find a WP:RS for the date! —Shrinkydinks (talk) 17:40, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Dating & attribution of relationship status

Hi there, fellow editors! Proactively opening a talk page discussion on this narrow/specific issue for two reasons:

1. I did something I thought was the right thing to do style-wise (based on what I recalled from some MOS pieces), but another editor disagrees (also backed by MOS) (shoutout to KyleJoan (talk · contribs), who I can see is an experienced editor since 2008!)
2. I want to learn how to balance different Wikipedia policies so I can be a better editor in the future!

There are two elements I'd love to discuss specifically:

1. Dating of statements ("as of" language)
2. Attribution of information

There are a couple miscellanea as well at the bottom just so we can cover all our bases.

For dating statements: When I was taking my first article to WP:GA, I read MOS:RELTIME, which says Absolute specifications of time are preferred to relative constructions using recently, currently, and so on, because the latter may go out of date... When material in an article may become out of date, follow the Wikipedia:As of guideline, which allows information to be written in a less time-dependent way. That "as of" language is explained in WP:As_of, which elaborates, The statement should make sense to a reader years into the future, even if the information has changed.

I took this together to mean that the current article prose, "They are separated" essentially includes an implied "currently"—the word "are" describes the present state. Instead of using this language, which may go out of date at a future point, we should date the statement and use "as of", if possible.

Now we get to the awkward point where different sources name different dates. People names 2018. Stuff reports they bought a house together in 2019 and then, "While it’s not clear when the couple parted ways, Stuff understands Winstanley has been living and working in New Zealand since 2019." The New Zealand Herald titled their 2020 article "Taika Waititi and wife Chelsea Winstanley separated". Ultimately, it seems news first broke in 2018 but there was some ambiguity for the next two years—but there seems to be no ambiguity any more after 2020, with The New Zealand Herald's article.

As the Herald is considered a newspaper of record for New Zealand, I'm inclined to trust them as a reliable source, and I'm inclined to include language in this article saying, "The two are separated as of 2020."

Question: Is this an appropriate, or inappropriate understanding/application of MOS:RELTIME? —Shrinkydinks (talk) 19:21, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

• Would love your thoughts here

For attribution of statements: Originally, I wrote in the article, "According to multiple reports, they are separated...", but KyleJoan said in a revision comment from 8 June, "why keep making it gossipy?" And on my talk page, the advice, "keep in mind that per WP:NOTNEWS: Wikipedia is not written in news style. Presenting information with descriptions such as "according to reports" does not meet that policy or the BLP policy."

This is a peculiar topic because (1) the separation has been reported in reputable newspapers to have occurred, but (2) both people in the relationship have declined to make any public comment directly on the matter. Because this is a biographies of a living person, my thought was to provide clear attribution for such a statement (where the article's subject might be touchy about the content).

I don't believe attributing the statement in general makes it gossipy, but I could see how the vague attribution I wrote originally ("According to multiple reports...) would probably be improved by making the attribution specific (eg. "According to The New Zealand Herald and Stuff, they are separated...").

Question: Is the specific, in-text attribution merited here, or should it be avoided? —Shrinkydinks (talk) 19:22, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

• Would love your thoughts here

Regarding Waititi's lack of comment on the separation: Originally, I'd added to the article, "neither has publicly discussed a separation." In that revision comment from 8 June, though, KyleJoan advised, "we don't need subjects to comment on every information present".

I totally agree; and I would expect almost every fact in the article to not include comment from the subject. However, my feeling was that this was such a significant life event, it is notable that neither has commented on it--and it might be undue weight to omit that fact.

Many of the sources we're working with here mention this absence of comment explicitly--for example, E! Online published, "[Taika] and Chelsea decided to go their separate ways in 2018 year. However, they have yet to publicly comment on their split". In addition, The New Zealand Herald article published, "The Herald on Sunday asked Winstanley about the rumours in 2018 but she would not address the split." To be fair, I'm not sure if this is relevant for our own decision-making (Wikipedia articles have different standards for inclusion than news articles).

Question: Is it due or undue weight to mention that both Waititi and Winstanley have declined to comment on their separation? —Shrinkydinks (talk) 19:22, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

• Would love your thoughts here

References

General discussion

Hi Helptottt (talk · contribs), KyleJoan (talk · contribs), Marquardtika (talk · contribs), and any others: I saw from this page's edit history that you might have thoughtful perspectives on this topic. I'm tagging you here to open a discussion on the above, which seems to be a recurring discussion on this page. Rather than playing it out in the edit summaries, where it could get lost, I figured it could be helpful to do it here, where future editors may benefit. What are your thoughts on the above? Feel free to add other specific sections/challenges if the above is insufficient. —Shrinkydinks (talk) 18:07, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 13 August 2022

Add to Taika Waititi's personal section: Since these tweets in 2015, Taika Waititi has shown a different attitude, especially with his recent alliance with the LGBTQ+ community. With his new Television show, Our Flag Means Death, he has done tremendous work towards making the world more accepting of love in all forms, through inclusive representation of the LGBTQ+ community, including queer relationships, non-binary characters, and a healthy view of gender/sexual identity. Waititi stated in a 2022 interview that "We're all queer. Just to varying degrees of where we are on the spectrum I think. I think, innately, humans have all got some degree of queerness in them." Along with Our Flag Means Death, Waititi has added queer representation into other projects he has worked on, including the Thor franchise. In Thor: Love and Thunder, Waititi's character is part of the LGBTQ+ community and is portrayed with a male love interest. LostOstrich (talk) 20:23, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Please see WP:NPOV. Jack Frost (talk) 12:06, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 14 August 2022

Married Rita Ora 2022 2.25.166.190 (talk) 09:17, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 13:19, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Marriage rumours

Currently the article says Ora and Waititi ... married in August 2022 sourced to people magazine. This has been added and removed multiple times recently. It has never been confirmed by the two and most sources consist purely of rumours. It would be good to get a discussion on this at the talk page. My gut feeling is that the source is weak, too weak for a BLP. It is basically quoting an anonymous source in a tabloidy write up. Aircorn (talk) 08:49, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, this is tricky. I searched around quite a bit, and numerous outlets covered it, but always along the lines of "the couple are reportedly married" or "according to E News..." etc. I don't see a strong enough source out there to verify the claim. What about if we put something along the lines of "In August 2022, a number of celebrity news outlets reported that the couple had married, although this has never been confirmed by the couple..." Marquardtika (talk) 17:28, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

@Aircorn, Marquardtika, and Maungapohatu: People, tabloid or not, is generally considered a reliable source for this kind of claim. And as you can see in what I quoted here, it does refer to them as definitively married, not just reportedly so. What about just adding "According to People" to the start of the sentence in question? That in-text attribution would make clear that this was soemthing reported in the media rather than directly by them, without falsely implying it's pure rumor-mill stuff. (Note that claims to the effect of "this has never been confirmed" are often quite hard to reliably source. Absence of evidence ≠ evidence of absence.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 00:50, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I think the problem with the People source is that it says several times "The couple sparked marriage rumors..." and then it says "A few days after sparking wedding rumors, a source confirmed to PEOPLE that Waititi and Ora are officially married." Another People article says "Following rumors and reports that the couple had tied the knot, a source confirms to PEOPLE that the Thor: Love and Thunder actor/director, 46, and the singer, 31, got married..." and "Reps for the stars have not responded to PEOPLE's requests for comment." An apparently anonymous source telling People something just isn't that strong, especially absent any other kind of confirmation. I think we could put something like "In August 2022, People reported that the couple had married in a small ceremony. The couple has not confirmed this." Marquardtika (talk) 02:37, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Lots of statements in the press come from anonymous sources. The whole point of judging sources' reliability is whether we trust them to be telling the truth about things we can't independently verify. I generally trust People to be telling the truth that someone in a position to speak authoritatively confirmed that they are married. I think the existing consensus about People backs up that perception. The framing you propose makes it sound like it's reasonably in dispute that Waititi and Ora are married. Is it? Does any reliable source dispute that they are? Simply stating the fact, with in-text attribution, should be enough. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 04:34, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Tamzin Perhaps I missed something in the source. Can you please detail the exact words where this source says anything confirming the marriage. The quote in the article I saw is against the Daily Mail which is never regarded as reliable, ever and is couched in the vaguest of terms. If this was so true there would be lots and lots of reliable sources, just wait until these exist because ultimately I’m sure they will. This is an encyclopaedia and there is no hurry. Maungapohatu (talk) 08:41, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

@Maungapohatu:

Aug. 12, 2022: Taika Waititi and Rita Ora's marriage is confirmed

A few days after sparking wedding rumors, a source confirmed to PEOPLE that Waititi and Ora are officially married. The two tied the knot in a "very small" ceremony. In recent social media snapshots, Waititi was shown wearing what appeared to be a wedding ring.

-- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 08:45, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Still not liking this. While there is consensus that People magazine can be a reliable source in biographies of living persons, the magazine should not be used for contentious claims unless supplemented with a stronger source. This falls into the contentious claims category for me. The fact that the two people involved are not commenting on this, the vagueness surrounding the whole implied marriage (the whole "a source" thing is unconvincing) and the general style of journalism (just go down the rabbit hole of links in people itself) makes me feel this is not a strong enough source to say in anywhere close to Wikipedias voice. It should definitely not be stated as fact in the infobox and needs something along the lines of Marquardtik's wording to be in the article body. While it is perfectly possible that they had a secret wedding and don't think it is anyones business but their own, it is also quite possible that they didn't have any wedding and don't think it is anyones business but their own. There is no harm in waiting for better sourcing, while there is harm in having incorrect information in a BLP. Aircorn (talk) 09:34, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Sources do not support that Waititi wrote original Moana screenplay

Not verified by the cited sources (44, 45) Ajardini (talk) 03:05, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

You're half-right. 44 doesn't. But 45 does'. A direct quote: "[New Zealand writer-director] Taika Waititi did write the first [Moana] screenplay," she wrote, saying that she was "sad" that his version hadn't made the final cut.

43 (currently this) also mentions his involvement. $chnauzer 04:28, 16 September 2023 (UTC)