Talk:Taika Waititi

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of time are preferred to relative constructions using recently, currently, and so on, because the latter may go out of date... When material in an article may become out of date, follow the Wikipedia:As of guideline, which allows information to be written in a less time-dependent way.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 Instead of using this language, which may go out of date at a future point, we should date the statement and use "as of", if possible.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.^[1] 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."^[2] The New Zealand Herald titled their 2020 article "Taika Waititi and wife Chelsea Winstanley separated".^[3] 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".^[4] 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."^[3] 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

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

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."^[1] 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)

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

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)

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)

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)

He's 1/8th Russian Jew by genetics but not raised practicing Judaism, the descent wasn't along maternal lines. Was he Bar Mitzvahed? He may claim Jewish identity but does the tribe claim him? Is he a member of a congregation? Remember Elizabeth Warren claiming she was Cherokee tribe just by minor genetic contribution? There are criteria he has to meet to be a Jew (it's a tribe). 35.129.1.72 (talk) 11:02, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

It also needs to be said that an atheist can't stand before the Shul claiming to faithfully honor the 613 Mitvahs without lying. 35.129.1.72 (talk) 18:37, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Further information; we have is his claim of the 1/8th Russian Jewish great grandfather. Infidility was possible, but witnessing a child emerge from the mother was assured a Jewish born child. Please review Matrilineality in Judaism. It comes down to finding a source that his mother is a Jewish member (not just ethnically) since her Jewishness comes through paternal lines. The ancestor that the Russian Jewish great grandfather, is parent of, needs to have "... live(d) a Jewish life, (and who are patrilineally Jewish), can be welcomed into the Jewish community and confirmed as Jewish through an individual process." Although this is Progressive Judaism views. Orthodox and Conservative Shuls may never accept his claim of being Jewish.

He can claim a religious view, a sexual preference, gender identity, but to claim a tribal membership needs more than his word. It needs to match with tribal representatives accepting him. His acceptance by Orthodox and Conservative Judaisn is unlikely. But some Reform congregation might accept him.

If you wish to add language something like "Taika claims to be Jewish through his paternal great grandfather but that violates Matrilineality in Judaism membership rules"; I won't object, but the actual categories of being Jewish needs better sources. 35.129.1.72 (talk) 08:04, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

We are not here to be the Jew police. Regarding your final paragraph, I don't see how such a change would be better than what is already written: His mother's paternal grandfather was a Russian Jew ... and Waititi stated that his mother's family were Russian Jewish, [etc] and Identifying as both Māori and Jewish, Waititi describes himself as a "Polynesian Jew". The current wording does not imply a clear and final judgement on how Jewish he is and by what measures that word might be true of him, it simply re-states what he has said, and what is presumably fact-checked about his great-grandfather. The only category he is placed in is Category:New Zealand people of Russian-Jewish descent, and that implies nothing of his status under any Jewish laws, nor of his religion at all.

On the other hand, if you want to deny the claim of his great-grandfather's ethnicity, you will need to bring sources that dispute or raise questions. — HTGS (talk) 01:38, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Waititi's father is also named Taika Waititi and its omission, however inconsequential to the article, is particularly obvious, especially since his paternal lineage is mentioned viz. his grandfather service history. Should this be included?

2600:4040:7013:F300:5801:75CC:C281:9188 (talk) 18:32, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

That reference says he was named after his grandfather, Taika. I think it would be helpful to find other independent mentions of his father’s name before assuming this article’s claim to his father’s name is correct. Such references (like many things personal to Taika) don’t appear to be easy to find which is probably why the article does not currently include his father’s name. Maungapohatu (talk) 05:27, 5 April 2025 (UTC)