Talk:Jeremy Renner

His wife claims he abused her psychically, emotionally, and mentally. This culminated in him threatening to her as well as himself. He denies these allegations.^[1][2] Ususer445 (talk)

Allegations of criminal activity can not be included, unless there was a criminal judgement, otherwise it's just rumors. - Adolphus79 (talk) 03:26, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

What about these news sources reporting on this? Doesn't that substantiate the fact they they were worthy enough for a brief mention here? If they didn't find it important it wouldn't be written about right?Lmharding (talk)

The original source is TMZ and that is not a reliable source. WP:BLP, WP:RS Anna (talk) 22:52, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Page six is not a reliable source, they always tend to use fake information and opinion as fact. 174.229.19.124 (talk) 20:18, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Someone changed his Instagram to a non official. I can't change it but if someone could change it to his actual Instagram page that would be amazing.

Please verify, but this is his as it has his:

https://www.instagram.com/jeremyrenner/ Djphatjive (talk) 00:20, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

 Done, the Insta link has been updated. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 00:22, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

snowcat instead of snowplow 2601:196:4800:6790:10AD:3F58:8F9D:E0F1 (talk) 15:09, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 17:19, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

It may all be archived footage from Avengers and the Hawkeye series but he does appear in the 2024 Disney+ show "Echo" as Hawkeye. Sdmb (talk) 17:49, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Can someone add that his great-grandmother was Afro-Jamaican? Here are sources -

https://www.imdb.com/list/ls099787439/ 222.152.25.14 (talk) 22:12, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Nope, imdb is not a reliable source. You can ask again if you find a better source. Schazjmd (talk) 22:42, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Rebecca Hall should be listed as an actress in The Town. She had the third largest role after Affleck and Renner. 2600:6C52:72F0:82D0:4ABA:7257:D2DD:67F2 (talk) 03:03, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Under personal life, please delete the uncited claim “Renner is a lefty”. I don’t find it wrong to have his political opinions in the personal life section, but the one sentence, semi-judgemental claim of him being a “lefty” is a bit much. 2600:8803:B004:8C00:6932:4EE6:3190:6DAE (talk) 04:29, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

 Done ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 06:32, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Are we sure they weren't talking about him writing with his left hand? I'm confused as to me that's what that "lefty" reference is to, not anything political or did I miss something?Ariyen (talk) 08:23, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

How does one add this charity Rennervation Foundation of his to his bio on this wiki?Ariyen (talk) 08:50, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Ariyen, you could probably add some prose and a sub-section about it in the "Personal life" section. Would suggest trying to see if you can find any reliable sources aside from the website itself talking about it to use as references for it, though. See the Teahouse if you have further question such as these. Happy editing! —Sirdog (talk) 00:12, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

I was the one that did the semi protect. not Ariyen. I think she was asking how like location, the references. how to word it in there. I know many local news talked about the foundation, but that was only their events. I would like to see it added. 2600:1004:B145:98F1:84C8:FEB2:3DE2:FE92 (talk) 08:03, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello, IP. Please do not add the {{Edit semi-protected}} template to talk pages without signing it and clearly indicating it is yours to avoid situations such as above. Edit requests are designed for those without sufficient permissions to provide a volunteer with sufficient permissions all of the information necessary to make the edit. They aren't, as the name might confusingly imply, for any general and non-specific requests for additions or changes to articles. You are free to make such requests on talk pages, just not with the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. The onus would be on you to provide the prose to be inserted, the relevant referencing, and where in the article it should go for volunteers to review and implement. Requests lacking these elements may be declined by those that patrol the queue, as I have functionally done by removing your 2nd invocation of the template. In terms of guidance, as I wrote above, stopping by the Teahouse may be helpful. I can't really provide guidance on how to write the prose aside from advising you to follow our policy on neutral point of view. For references, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Help:Referencing for beginners on how to physically do it. —Sirdog (talk) 08:46, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Just reverted an edit by User:Ariyen that inserted a photo of Jeremy Renner from the cover of his book My Next Breath.

That photo is almost certainly copyrighted and we need to assume that until someone can provide evidence to the contrary. Photographers specializing in high-quality portraits of celebrities generally do not work for free.

To be clear, it may be fair use to use a low-res version of the entire book cover in a WP article about the book itself.

But it is not fair use to crop the book cover and use the image alone in the WP article on Renner, because there are numerous freely available images of Renner on Wikimedia Commons which do not have copyright issues. Commons has so many such photos that they are divided into subcategories by year!

If you feel all those photos are too old, you can easily make a newer photo by simply showing up at his next public appearance. The fact that it may be more difficult or expensive for some persons to do that than others (for example, if one does not live near Reno or Los Angeles) is not a defense under copyright law. It's your problem to figure that out.

For example, to see celebrities in person, I went to the D23 fan events four times. That's how I got the photos for the Moana 2 article. Coolcaesar (talk) 01:31, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

I didn't crop it. It was obtained as was from Flatiron. The false accusation without proof, is really annoying. All other sites that usually do free use images, have used this photo. Ariyen (talk) 00:02, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

I strongly doubt that. If someone at Flatiron Books actually emailed you the photo, they are probably out of a job by now.

The publisher is usually a licensee, meaning they are usually licensed only to use the image on the book cover itself and to promote the book. They can't just hand out celebrity photos to anyone who asks nicely for them.

If you actually know someone at Flatiron, you need to get the contact info for the photographer and then persuade that person to release their right in their work to the Wikimedia Foundation.

Other sites using that photo probably (1) are using it as part of the whole cover in connection only with a book review (fair use) or (2) have a deal in place with the photographer or (3) are so small or reckless that they don't care about following the law.

But the Wikimedia Foundation is big enough to care, so WP has to strictly adhere to the law. The photo is not fair use anywhere on WP other than an article about the book itself.

If you care about having a high-quality photo of Renner appear in this article that's not five years old and postdates his accident, it's your burden to figure out how to see Renner in person while holding a camera and then take that picture. Good luck. — — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolcaesar (talk • contribs) 20 August 2025

User:Ariyen reverted edits that are linked to reliable and documented sources based on nothing but personal feelings. The edit concerns the section on Renner's alleged sexual harassment by Yi Zhou. The reason given in the Edit Summary was given as thus:

False information by one fake person who went to the tabloids (instead of legal) does not belong on a wikipedia page.

First off, what on Earth is a "fake person"? Second, she did not "go to the tabloids". She reported it on her Instagram, and was then picked up and reported by other outlets. This reversion is clearly biased by personal feelings, and no doubt the user's own declared love of Renner's music (on their own userpage), and thus should be considered unreliable. Second, the user left this block of text on my own talk page:

I know you meant well by your inclusion, but much everything has been false that these so called Journalists are not researching or they wouldn't have published for money. The photos shown from her - A few had christmas tree in them. She didn't know him at the time. The bar one, if one would look in the background is clearly from the show Mayor of Kingstown as the background matches. Many more photos clearly look from different phones or others, including one with a pink shoe (No shadow - clearly added to what clearly looks like a guy's leg). It's just so much doesn't make sense that she tried telling these "Sources" that I do not believe any of it and most more legit sources are not running with it or are taking from the clear smearing tabloids like dailymail, tmz, etc. Lily, an instagram member, was called out by this person for even showing a model that this girl (yi) used as her image. Lily was also attacked by the company pages of this girl. No legit company would do that nor would they screenshot comments of another and act immature. Yi has been called out by many youtube and other influencers. Yi, has used a couple of these instagram users in a "cease and desist". She's also used copyrighted material in her movies, thinking a signature from him is enough. Her answer, when called out, is that she has "freedom of speech" to use other people's work. This is not something that needs to be on his page for things not proven in court at all (Not gone to court yet) and by someone clearly out to smear him. She's done this sorts before to others that no longer deal with her, including a lawsuit against her for her harassment on others, etc. that she still continues to this date on the actor. She's been indirectly using these companies as her "leverage" that he doesn't deserve anything, when he's been busy filming, cons, camp, foundation, etc. Majority know that she tried to use him during a one time meet. She claimed more and used fake edits that many have pointed out as reality. All can say is, hope the courts do justice. It's just not something that should be on a page, over someone acting up and out on things in the first place that never made sense... I hope you understand, before adding things - do some research. Thank you

"But much everything has been false" - No evidence is provided for this claim. "so-called Journalists" - clearly biased language. "they wouldn't have published for money" - what does this even mean? Where's the evidence that any journalist published this for monetary reward beyond their own salary? "I do not believe any of it" - This is a declaration that the user is making edits based on their own personal biases and feelings, not any actual evidence. They provide no sources that the allegations themselves have been discredited. "Yi has been called out by many youtuber and other influencers"- So what? These people aren't legitimate journalists or investigators, they are people with a YouTube channel. Anyone can do that, and anyone can divulge their own unlettered unevidenced opinions for the world to see. Need I go on? This user needs to be reprimanded, as I see this is not their first violation of Wikipedia's standards on this particular page.(PaulThomas92 (talk) 19:42, 6 December 2025 (UTC))

Alligations should not be allowed, unless it is proven within court with legal documents. He is innocent until shown proof of alligations. Otherwise, it's ones trying to ruin a career and posting on them shows their support and biased opinion. All information is at the mercy of opinions of Journalists. Ariyen (talk) 15:23, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

It is spelled "allegations". Allegations are found on numerous other Wikipedia entries for people which have been documented and reported by reputable news outlets. Such examples include Kevin Spacey (who has a whole separate article just to detail all the allegations), Brett Ratner, Charlie Rose, Louis C.K. and many more. Your unlettered response to this of removing documented reporting from reputable and reliable sources demonstrates you have a clear personal bias on this.(PaulThomas92 (talk) 20:33, 7 December 2025 (UTC))

Furthermore, please refrain from deleting my other post here on the Talk page, which arguably constitutes bad-faith vandalism. The discussion needs to be had if we're to confront deleting documented allegations from reliable and reputable sources.(PaulThomas92 (talk) 20:44, 7 December 2025 (UTC))

You are biased because you don't see that she's contacted these outlets etc. Even influencers etc. Trying to play victim and changing her story often... it's biased that she continues to make sure that all of them air what she wants. Attacks them on it being against her. It has to go to Court.

This has to be cleared as to what is fact and what is not Ariyen (talk) 20:52, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

please removed section, sexual harassment and abuse allegation. a comment from someone.no police report. only gossip from her to magazines. either you do this to every person or this is not a correct way to handle things

Sexual harassment and abuse allegation In November 2025, filmmaker Yi Zhou alleged that Renner had subjected her to sexual misconduct and abuse. Zhou, a Chinese national, alleged that Renner threatened to "call ICE" on her after she confronted him about alleged misconduct, which involved sending her unsolicited sexual photos of himself earlier that year, and shouting at her while drunk at his home, leading her to fear for her life.[93] Renner denied the allegations, insisting they had shared a "brief consensual encounter". Renner's attorney responded with a cease-and-desist letter to Zhou.[94] ~2026-14091-52 (talk) 19:27, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

i apologize. this is the first time i have ever done this. i tried to write more but it didn't work. i am stating that ms yi did not go to the police and file charges yet she is claiming he raped her and harassed her. she also at the same time wanted him to promote her films. when he didn't is when she made the claims. he did state that they had a brief consensual sexual encounter. she asked him to be a part of her documentary. she had the control. she had the power. men can be blackmailed too. i am a rape survivor. i know and see truths. i would kindly ask that you pay attention to where she went to comment. she put little innuendos on her instagram before even saying anything. she made it look like they were in a relationship. then when he wouldn't go along with that is when she decided to make it look different. those trolls were not trolls. they were fans who were not understanding what was going on. then fans who figured it out. i watched from sidelines as you could see how it unfolded when magazines and others weren't watching. she truly did play the victim well. his attorney did send the cease and desist letter because there was nothing else happening between them. she was just saying whatever she wanted. she used her contract access to gain access to his home and take those pictures without his knowledge. she portrayed herself and him a certain way. i am just asking that you would maybe think about someones life, their daughters life and how it affects them. ms yi has not brought any charges against him for a reason, there are none to be had. she wanted attention for her movies for oscars and herself. she got it. now she has disappeared. does that sound like someone who truly had it happen. no, i know because of what happened to me. what you write does indeed affect human beings. thank you ~2026-14091-52 (talk) 19:58, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

 Not done:. This is governed by wikipedia's policy at WP:BLPPUBLIC. We do not get involved in deciding whether or not the allegations are true.

It says that we report allegations like this when 1) the subject of the article is a public figure and 2) there are multiple third-party sources that discuss the allegations. Both of these criteria seem to be met. Do you think I'm missing something on that?

The policy also notes that we need to state them as allegations, which we do, and that we should mention a denial, if there was one. Both of those are also met.

Is there an aspect of the article that you think violates the policy? meamemg (talk) 20:29, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

in the allegations under (93) rolling stone is used but their article is based on the daily mail article as stated in by nancy dillon in her article which is a banned source for wikipedia. does this not violate the policy. ms zhou went to the daily mail as the original source to speak to which would put all other sources in a credibility corner. so even if another source reports what the daily mail states, they are reporting on what ms zhou stated to the daily mail and as they are not a credible source then all other sources are only further sensationalizing what the daily mail sensationalizes. this was her goal. or am i seeing how this is being used as a work around to get around the ban by using the other sources who report on the daily mail as the original source. this should violate not only policy but ethics standards. ~2026-14091-52 (talk) 00:26, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

No, the fact that a reliable source was relying on another source that Wikipedia does not rely on directly is not problematic. In fact, that is typical. Wikipedia relies on secondary sources. Secondary sources, in turn, generally rely on primary sources. Wikipedia does not rely on primary sources, but every source we use, if you go far enough down the chain, will be a primary source. meamemg (talk) 15:12, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

I am stating Yes, that if that primary source is a source wikipedia has banned, for good reason, then any reporting from a secondary source would be compromised. it must be taken into account that the primary source was used for the secondary source which is a banned source for wikipedia. to use a go around by using a secondary source should still violate policy and ethics. this site then becomes subject to credibility issues. if the primary source was people magazine and then you used rolling stone as the source, i would understand, as both are reliable sources but when the original source is a banned source then all sources are subject to non reliability and credible issues because the original source is a gossip source which is proven to lie and make up or exaggerate stories which is why they are banned. any source there after is then reporting on those made up comments. this is where ethics practices must begin also. if you are stating that you are using a work around for the ban then maybe that should be reported. this site is used by millions for accurate information. using a secondary source based on a banned source is still using the banned source. without the banned source there is no secondary source article. the secondary source only writes because it brings eyes. that is why they link the to original article. which is the banned source. wikipedia policy states daily mail is banned. any source that is using daily mail as their source is in fact using a source wikipedia bans. therefore that section should be removed ~2026-14091-52 (talk) 17:09, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Can you point me to the policy that says we can't use reliable independent secondary sources in those circumstances? I'm not aware of it. meamemg (talk) 23:09, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

in the talk section above- allegations of abuse concerning his ex wife. this is the same context and was not allowed because of original source being unreliable and thus rumors even though other sources reported on it. ms yi is saying the sex is not consensual and he threatened her and made her fear for her life yet there is no criminal judgement and is therefore rumors she has put out there. therefore this section should be deleted same as his ex wife's allegations.

Allegations of abuse

His wife claims he abused her psychically, emotionally, and mentally. This culminated in him threatening to her as well as himself. He denies these allegations. Ususer445 (talk)

Allegations of criminal activity can not be included, unless there was a criminal judgement, otherwise it's just rumors. - Adolphus79 (talk) 03:26, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

What about these news sources reporting on this? Doesn't that substantiate the fact they they were worthy enough for a brief mention here? If they didn't find it important it wouldn't be written about right?Lmharding (talk)

The original source is TMZ and that is not a reliable source. WP:BLP, WP:RS Anna (talk) 22:52, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Page six is not a reliable source, they always tend to use fake information and opinion as fact. 174.229.19.124 (talk) 20:18, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

References

https://pagesix.com/2021/11/18/jeremy-renner-calls-sonni-pachecos-abuse-allegations-nonsense

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/jeremy-renner-sonni-pacheco-ex-wife-cocaine-gun-custody-kids-ava-daughter-a9155731.html ~2026-14477-38 (talk) 19:45, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Given Page6 isn't reliable, there were not multiple independent reliable sources. And I respectfully disagree with @Adolphus79 regarding the application of WP:BLPCRIME here given Renner's status as a public figure, WP:BLPPUBLIC should apply instead. But happy to have Adolphus chime in here. meamemg (talk) 19:56, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

tmz was the original source, page6 was only one of several publications. even when i look up people magazine, it references tmz as where they got their information as the original source and they give no new information than what tmz reported. it is the same as with ms zhou's allegations. ~2026-14477-38 (talk) 20:11, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Wow, I think 5 years is a new personal record for getting tagged after making a comment, that took me a minute to figure out. At the time, there had been no sources offered up or even implied in the user's statement, I was presented with purely a "she said" rumor, so I replied with BLPCRIME because it doesn't matter if they're a celebrity or not if it is unsourced gossip. If, 5 years later, there are reliable sources to verify that he actually did abuse her (I don't follow celebrity gossip) and/or was convicted (or at least some kind of trial/lawsuit/etc., not just gossip rags printing and reprinting that "she said" he abused her), I see no reason it can't be included. But, if it is still unsourced/poorly sourced "she said" gossip, I stand by it not being encyclopedic and also possibly exposing us legally as borderline libel. - Adolphus79 (talk) 22:30, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for chiming in (and sorry it's been so long)! I don't follow celebrity gossip either (just came here from my edit-request patrolling). But it seems that there are reliable sources (not just gossip pages) verifying that the allegations are made, and discussing the allegations. To me, that qualifies for coverage in the article. I don't see anything one way or about whether the allegations are true. meamemg (talk) 16:59, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

That's kinda my point. If there are no RS that says it did happen, then we can't say it did in Wikivoice. And if it is only a "she said" rumor, with no further actions taken, then we definitely can't write it here as if it was fact. Anyone can start a rumor about someone else, that doesn't mean we will automatically add it to the article, and especially without anything to verify any of the allegations are true. I could call a bunch of newspapers tomorrow and say "the moon is made of cheese!", just because they publish it as silly gossip does not mean it is true, or verifiable, or encyclopedic, nor would it belong on the Moon article. Bottom line, are there any RS sources that can verify anything more than "she said" gossip? - Adolphus79 (talk) 18:20, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

After checking BLPPUBLIC again just now, I will concede the mention of "alleged abuse" as long as we have an actual RS for it, not just gossip rags or RS's quoting a gossip rag. - Adolphus79 (talk) 01:52, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

all other sources are based on the original source and in this case the original source is the daily mail and attribute all their information to the daily mail and link to it. and they are not a reliable source ~2026-14477-38 (talk) 19:56, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

You've said that several times, but still haven't been able to point to any policy that says we can't use a reliable source under such circumstances. At this point, we've just been going around in circles, so I'm going to politely bow out of the conversation. meamemg (talk) 19:58, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

are you inviting adolphus to chime in here. i did find a talk discussion but i must find it again as i was looking at many talk discussions ~2026-14477-38 (talk) 20:12, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

We could keep this for now, but if nothing further happens in the next twelve months or so, we should delete the section. Maybe the allegations will be substantiated, maybe there'll be a lawsuit. In that case, this issue may have long-term relevance. Otherwise, it doesn't, and we should delete it. — Chrisahn (talk) 07:52, 10 March 2026 (UTC)