Talk:Nicole Kidman/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3


Speculation & Rumour.. Sunday Rose Kidman Urban

According to Kidman's advisor, through second source statements; Nicole Kidman's most recent baby Sunday Rose Kidman Urban was not conceived by Nicole Kidman, as she is unable to carry children due to an unspecified medical condition. It is rumoured that this child was adopted and not her own or Keith Urban's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.94.236 (talk) 12:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

  • And I can confirm that there actually is no child at all - it is actually a robot especially designed by Sony and being passed off as real. (Seriously though - where do you people come up with this stuff?) Manning (talk) 14:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

king kong

in the list of her films, king kong isnt listed... idk how to edit that... one you of do... 68.6.181.160 (talk) 01:57, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me but Nicole kidman does not play in king kong. It is actress and her personel friend Naomi Watts.

Nosebutton (talk) 22:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Nicole Kidman not an Australian

Nicole Kidman is clearly not an Australian, as she holds an honorary Order of Australia (AC). This award is reserved for non-Australians. Wallie (talk) 10:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Umm, where ever did you gain the impression her Companion of the Order of Australia is honorary? Per the official Australian Government listing on her honour here, it is not an honorary award. Also, she may have been born in Hawaii, but she was born to Australian parents and grew up in Australia; meaning she is Australian. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 10:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Semi Protection

I just semi protected indefinitely. The last changes were unreverted for four months. Given Kidman's status and past complex isues with press and tabloids etc, I figure there is a pretty high likelihood of flyby material to be added and no-one changing it. The large article size is also a camoflage at times and can make tracking annoying. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

  • I'll support you on that - I just managed to excise a few subtle but nonsensical sentences, eg "These days Kidman lives in Burwood where she owns a relatively small house." (She doesn't live anywhere near Burwood which is a lower middle-class area). Manning (talk) 14:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Not of American descent

At the risk of stirring up this perennial hornet's nest yet again, I've removed the category "Australians of American descent". She was born in the US and is therefore a US citizen. But her parents and earlier ancestors were not Americans - or if they were, we make no mention of it in the article. "Australians of American descent" implies there's more to her Americanness than an accident of birth, but there's not. Mel Gibson - now that's a completely different story. Also true for Cate Blanchett. But not Nicole Kidman. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:48, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Race/Ethnicity

Hmm Nicoles Scottish and Irish descent isn't mentioned at all on this article. I recall it used to mention it before? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dugg1900 (talk • contribs) 13:22, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Recent edit

While I think that the edits today helped the article, I am a little concerned with her entire personal life being first in the article. I think it would be better served to have her early life covered first, then the career, followed by her personal life after the advent of her career. It tends to make her entire personal life appear more notable than the career. It also would give it more of a continuity flow, unless the entire article were revised to follow a complete chronology. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I'm not a fan of "personal life" sections and I think that if the information can't be worked into a career chronology and given context against their reason for notability, then it probably is trivia and doesn't belong. I realize that a lot of people would disagree. Given that Kidman is known for her acting work primarily, this should be the focus. I think a short section that discusses her origins and the beginning of her career should lead into the main part of the article which should be her professional life. The personal life should follow. It currently reads as though she is notable for her personal life and that her acting is secondary. Rossrs (talk) 16:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I gave this a couple days and the person who made the changes hasn't responded so I am going to split the section as we both agreed above. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Regarding facts and POV

It is a fact that Kidman has won an Academy Award. It is also a fact that she has won or been nominated for a variety of prominent awards. There are many facts about her, and the relevant ones belong in the article. To say that Nicole Kidman (or anyone else) is "an Academy-Award winning actress" places WP:UNDUE weight upon one award, dismisses any others as irrelevant, and by placing it in the opening sentence, makes the award part of her definition. MOS:BIO says that the first sentence is to explain notability. Kidman is notable as an actress. Her awards are an important part of her story but her notability does not rest upon them. It's the selectivity and the placement of the fact that is interpreted by some editors as POV, to the point that it is specifically addressed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers. While this project is encouraging rewriting film biographical lead sections to reflect an appropriate balance, it is counterproductive to restore this description for no reason other than it is a fact. The lead section for this article is better than many, but it's not perfect. I've reworded it in the hope of removing the perceived POV from the first sentence, and of providing context by addressing the award to the specific film, along with a couple of other notable awards. Rossrs (talk) 09:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Is she Jewish, or of Jewish Heritage?

Not likely... if the question comes from the fact that she chose to support Israel and critize Hamas and Hezbolla.... that is a reflection on her of being a very intelligent person with the ability of raising the voice against terrorism and the right of defense of a sovereign nation even if this position was not a popular at the time or now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.17.170.211 (talk) 21:12, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


Wikipedia manual of style for biographies

Clearly states that country of birth should not be mentioned in the opening sentence unless relevant to subjects notability. Could someone please provide a coherent explanation as to why Kidmans's birth place of Hawaii is relevant to her notability, I would be really interested to hear it. Ernest the Sheep (talk) 21:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

You are incorrect as to what MOS:BIO states. It does not say anywhere that country of birth should not be mentioned in the opening sentence. It clearly says "The opening paragraph should have:
  1. Name(s) and title(s), if any (see, for instance, also Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles));
  2. Dates of birth and death, if known (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Dates of birth and death);
  3. Nationality & ethnicity –
        1. In the normal case this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen or national, or was a citizen when the person became notable. (Note: There is no consensus on how to define nationality for people from the United Kingdom, which encompasses constituent countries. For more information, please see the essay "Wikipedia:Nationality of people from the United Kingdom" and the talk page archives.)
        2. Ethnicity or sexuality should generally not be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. Similarly, previous nationalities and/or the country of birth should not be mentioned in the opening sentence unless they are relevant to the subject's notability.
  4. What the person did;
  5. Why the person is significant."

It clearly says "Ethnicity or sexuality shoudl generally not be emphasized", it also clearly says "nationality" should be listed.

Because Kidman was clearly born in Hawaii, the United States, it should be mentioned, and because she became notable as being from Australia, editors have used the "American-born Australian" to cover both specifics - her country of birth and from where she became notable. Please leave it as editors have determined. Thank you. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Editors have determined? Which editors? When? Is not Ernest an editor?Gerardw (talk) 01:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Editors who made the edits and the plethora of editors who have not changed it and have continued to support it. Ernest posted a fallacious rationale regarding the MOS:BIO not recommending the inclusion of country of birth. I don't care to get into a long protracted discussion regarding this. There was a dispute mediation regarding this that included the fact that she had dual citizenship. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
I can't figure out why this is such a big issue and being argued over, just leave it alone. I see no reason why it can not be part of the intro. Ridernyc (talk) 01:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

It clearly states in MOS:BIO, section 3, point 2, and I quote

"Similarly, previous nationalities and/or the country of birth should not be mentioned in the opening sentence unless they are relevant to the subject's notability."

So does anyone care to answer my original question? Ernest the Sheep (talk) 01:48, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Not with the way you asked it. She has dual citizenship, she's American born. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
She may have dual citizenship, but that is irrelevant to my original question. I repeat, it clearly states in MOS:BIO that country of birth is only to be mentioned in the opening sentence if it is relevant to the subjects notability. I again ask the question: why is Kidmans's birth place of Hawaii relevant to her notability. Care to answer it? Ernest the Sheep (talk) 02:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
It clearly states in MOS:BIO, section 3, point 3 (1) that nationality will be covered (that is the same as citizenship FWIW). You're overthinking this. Point 3(1) comes before point 3 (2) and is precedent. Every biography starts with the country of birth by stating "American", "French", "German", "English". Don't make this harder than it is. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Not Madeline Albright [[1]] Gerardw (talk) 14:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
It is you who is making this more difficult than it should be. I repeat for the umpteenth time, MOS:BIO clearly states that country of birth is only to be mentioned in the opening sentence if it is relevant to the subjects notability. You are of course free to reference her American citizenship elsewhere in the opening paragraph, just not in the opening sentence. In my opinion Kidman's "Americaness" or American citizenship is not a significant factor in her notability. Her "Australianess" however, is significant to her notability. If you disagree with me on this then I would like a clear explanation as to why. I'm not sure about the reasons behind this particular wikipedia rule, but it would be my guess that it has something to do with WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. Ernest the Sheep (talk) 03:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
And as I pointed out to you, MOS:BIO also clearly says to include nationality. When a person has dual citizenship, both are mentioned. I do not know why you are unable to understand that. And for the record, MOS:BIO is not a policy, it is a guideline. Point 3 makes it clear that nationality is part of it. It also makes clear that ethnicity is not. I'm sorry you don't understand that, but I am not going to waste my breath saying this over and over. I don't care what your opinion is about the notability of whether she holds US citizenship, she has both and therefore, it should be included. Take this up at Wikipedia talk:MOS:BIO, not on this page if you don't like the way it is laid out. As I said, the (1) takes precedent over (2). If she were Jewish, then (2) would come into play and it would not be covered in the lead. It doesn't say not to include nationality. That is what is relevant here. I can't say it any plainer than that. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting dual citizenship should not be mentioned. My issue is over the relevant importance of each citizenship and how they relate to the subjects notability. For example, to state that Kidman is an Australian actress would be an accurate reflection of her notability, and indeed that would appear to be the way she is described by the general media around the world. On the other hand, to refer to her as an American, or American-born actress would be unusual, and would, in my opinion, be to give undue weight to her American citizenship. You can attempt to skirt around the issue all you want, but the fact is mention of her country of birth should not be included in the opening sentence of the article. You cannot just choose to follow wikipedia guidelines when they suit you. End of story. Ernest the Sheep (talk) 07:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, one can choose to ignore all rules. You've tried arguing this point before and was overruled and in fact agreed to it. You said "For example the Encarta World English Dictionary describes her as a Hawaiian-born Australian actor. I would be happy to go along with that. How's that for major contradiction? And for the record, citizenship is not a matter of undue weight. End of story. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Again I ask why is this even an issue? Ridernyc (talk) 03:04, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

It isn't an issue, except to Ernest the Sheep. Multiple discussions have occured about this, there was a dispute mediation over it and this is what emerged. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
It is because WP:CCC. Unless Ernest was involved in the previous discussion and is being tendentious, it's a valid topic of discussion. Gerardw (talk) 14:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
In fact, he has been involved in previous discussions and was overruled. He's trying to re-argue an old point he tried to push through before. He actually said "For example the Encarta World English Dictionary describes her as a Hawaiian-born Australian actor. I would be happy to go along with that. How's that for major contradiction? Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, didn't realize that. Never_mind_(Saturday_Night_Live) Gerardw (talk) 19:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, it's a contradiction of sorts I'll admit. However I would point out that on the occasions I did attempt to implement that particular edit it was usually undone quite quickly. In fact I believe it was you who objected to it on at least one occasion. So obviously it was not acceptable to you back then. Perhaps it is now? Back then I took a more conciliatory approach to disputes and was happy to see a few wikipedia guidelines bent for the sake of agreement. But I've since found from bitter experience that a common-sense approach only gets you so far, sometimes you need to take a stickler attitude to wikipedia guidelines in order to help other editors see common sense. Technically I could argue that Hawaii is not a country and so it's not really such a contradiction anyway. Whatever the case, I do not consider that I am rearguing an old point, but rather presenting a new perspective on the issue that was not properly dealt with during the original discussion. Ernest the Sheep (talk) 20:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
If this was the subject of mediation, why is it being brought up again? However you want to dress this up, it is arguing an old point for no real reason. For whatever reason, that seems to be a budding trend around here. The current wording is fine. It states where Kidman was born and what nationality she is. It does not put an undue weight on her nationality or anything else for that matter. Sheesh. Pinkadelica♣ 23:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
It might well be arguing an old point, but the reasons are valid. Ernest the Sheep (talk) 00:05, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
This user has a very long history of POV edits involving New Zealand and Australia. Check his talk page and block logs. Ridernyc (talk) 05:17, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Attacking the messenger??? Ernest the Sheep (talk) 00:02, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
I thought after all the discussion, and the fact that this version has been relatively stable, that would be enough to support its use. I do not understand why "Hawaiian-born Australian actor" would in theory be acceptable, but "American-born Australian" is not. The state has nothing to do with nationality. If she was born in Mississippi would we say "Mississipi-born Australian" or if it was the other way around would we describe her as a "New South Wales-born American"? I don't see why this is an issue and I don't think it needs to be changed. Rossrs (talk) 07:57, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
I think you might be getting distracted from the real issue. I originally made the suggestion of "Hawaiian-born Australian actor" as a compromise. In theory it gets around the issue of not mentioning country of birth in the opening sentence, although obviously it could be argued that it is merely dodging the issue. However it was deemed to not be acceptable. The real issues are related to notabilility and undue weight, as I have already outlined in this discussion. Ernest the Sheep (talk) 00:24, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
I addressed my main point, which is simply that I disagree that this needs to be changed. My additional comment was concerning what I perceive to be a pointless compromise. If it's wrong to emphasis the country of birth, it would be just as wrong to emphasise the state of birth. In my opinion it would be "more wrong" because the state is less notable than the country and does not address nationality/citizenship or anything more than the specific geography of the birthplace. Why not "Honolulu-born"? I don't see any logic in the offer of compromise, and whether or not it was deemed acceptable is not relevant. I don't think it needs to be changed, and that's the main thing I was saying. Rossrs (talk) 06:20, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
I think you shouldn't make assumptions. The fact that the phrasing you suggested is what was used, and has been that way for what? 3 years? is what is germane. It's obvious that others disagree with your contention that her being an American citizen and thus it mentioned is notable and others have discounted your contention that mentioning where someone is born is not undue weight. Various persons responding here disagree with your contention. It has entered into the realm of wasting everyone's time. The consensus here is not to change it. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:48, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Dude, I think you are starting to lose the plot here. MOS guidelines clearly state that country of birth is not to be mentioned in the opening sentence unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. I'm still waiting to hear an explanation from you as to why you think Kidman's country of birth is relevant to her notability. Ernest the Sheep (talk) 01:03, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I will remind you to observe basic civility here and stop being obtuse. I am not a "dude" and I do not care to be called that. Where is your keeper who is supposed to be mentoring you to observe proper etiquette and behavior? Your question has been answered many times. MOS:BIO first states to includes in the lead "Nationality – 1. In the normal case this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen or national, or was a citizen when the person became notable." For Kidman, that is American by birth and is therefore valid inclusion. That is why it is included. The first part takes precedence over the second, lesser, comment. And secondly, as has been stated before, WP:IAR gives editors leeway to ignore all rules, including the second part covering country of birth. Stop demeaning other editors now, Ernest, by talking down to them or it will be taken to WP:WQA. Besides your repetitive comments, other editors have weighed in on this and support the wording. Please stop beating this dead horse. Your concerns have been overruled by consensus. Learn to live with it and find a new battle to wage. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:05, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree here. The MOS:BIO is written that way to not belabor country of birth when citizenship is not an issue. If the person is still a citizen of the country where he or she is born, it is fair game to be mentioned. This is properly included here and I tend to think that trying to snow the parties who disagree with you with the same repeated question, which has been addressed repeatedly is wikilawyering and trying to beat down the opposition with incivility and redundancy. I'm the 5th person to agree to this with only you on the other side of the opinion. Give it up. LaVidaLoca (talk) 02:27, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Give it up you say? Well, I might be a somewhat of a lone voice at present, but that does not mean I am wrong. The reason I keep repeating the question is because I've yet to hear the answer. Perhaps you could oblige? Why is Kidman's place of birth relevant to her notability? Ernest the Sheep (talk) 09:30, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Your question has been addressed over and over. Her place of birth establishes citizenship, which is directly covered in the guidelines. It has nothing to do with notability, it has everything with properly interpreting the intent and precedent as covered in MOS:BIO. Because your "lone voice" is in fact "lone" should make it clear to you that you are misinterpreting the intent of the guideline. Dual citizenship exists here and it is thusly covered according to that. Stop stumbling over the word "born" and carrying out this discussion beyond its natural length. Consensus here overrides you. Please stop belaboring your point. LaVidaLoca (talk) 18:33, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
I have repeatedly asked why this is an issue and been totally ignored. Ernest care to answer us without citing the MOS, tell us why you want it changed. Again not what the guideline says, why you think this an issue worth even having a discussion about. Ridernyc (talk) 08:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

And I answered your question above. I don't think it is an issue, except to a POV editor who actually suggested the wording in a dispute mediation. Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Ridernyc, you have not been ignored. I have clearly stated my reasons. Firstly MOS would seem to support my contention. Without citing MOS, I have also provided a more general argument that the edit as is gives undue weight to her American citizenship. It's all there if you care to read it, also you might like to check out the Bob Hope discussion page. Ernest the Sheep (talk) 00:00, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

And it appears that between the earlier dispute mediation, wherein you suggested the wording based on how another encyclopedia describes her and the opinions expressed here, your arguments are being overruled. Do you know how to drop something that you didn't win? Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:14, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think your most recent contributions to this discussion have been very helpful, if you don't mind me saying. Ernest the Sheep (talk) 09:43, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
I do mind your saying so, and stop making personal comments, as you so readily remind others. Because I called you on civility and mentioned your need for a mentor to avoid a block does not make my comments "unhelpful". Please observe basic Wikipedia etiquette as you've been reminded. Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:27, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Where and when was the mediation? Gerardw (talk) 00:57, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
It can be found in dispute mediation files from 2006. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:05, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Auto-archiving

Someone added the miszabot automatic archiving to this page, something to which I do not object. Someone else came along and reverted that and when I reverted that removal because there was not objection to it, he also reverted that, stating his removal was objection. This all is rather pointy to me. This page could certainly benefit from auto-archiving and I am unaware that there is a cut-off number of edits required for auto-archiving. I often come across talk pages that get commentary on posts over 3 years old, quite often taking the form of vandalism. How helpful is that? I propose that the auto-archiving be reinstituted to this page to keep it cleaned up. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:57, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Basically we do not like to have auto-archiving on pages unless the page gets large enough that it warrents it. ie I believe the person who originally had it set the archive to every 90 days. So basically what you would want to see if its archiving every 90 days is that it gets 100k of traffic every 90 days. Old threads on a talk page are generally helpful to readers. Instead of making them go to another archive it is generally prefered that they be on the main talk page unless the talk page is larger 100k in total. -DJSasso (talk) 20:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
No usually they don't like the page to be bigger than I believe 350k because a lot of computers can't handle larger than that. You can set it for 90 days or 200 days. Usually when it's on a talk page like this it gets adjusted until it is archiving just old inactive threads. If they page get completely dormant than the talk page is blank. No problems since it's old conversations. If someone comes here and they don't go to the archives, though you can also put a archive search up too for easier access, they just start a new conversation. There is no common sense to keep really old conversations going. Do the archive. --CrohnieGalTalk 22:24, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Kidman's humanitarian status

i do not dispute that kidman has won good samaritan awards, donates to charities, etc, etc, but her name (as her wiki page asserts) was on a list of celebrity signatories that publicly took israel's side during the 2006 Lebanon War. now i'm sure many wikipedians will take issue with this but objectively, those who support israel's actions tend to be of a conservative bent and those who criticize israel tend to be from a liberal standpoint. this is the first time i have been warned not to add a npov tag. as i have pointed out already, unicef estimated 30% of lebanese killed during the war were children under 13. we could argue til the next millennium about which side is morally bankrupt but to state kidman is a "humanitarian" in light of her support for israel's actions during the highly controversial war clearly lacks neutrality. Marxwasright (talk) 17:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

This assertion is biased in its formation. No one is arguing the Lebanon War here or how many children were killed or moral bankruptcy. Signing a petition does not mean she endorsed a war or the killing of children. Surely you are not suggesting she supported the death of children?She has been active with UNICEF and cited for her humanitarian acts by multiple organizations. Contending that the description of "humanitarian" is POV and arguing that based on signing a petition is POV in and of itself, Marxwasright, as is your classification of those who support Israel and those who criticize it. Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:23, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
we're going around in circles. this isn't about my own political views. kidman's position on the war (and putting her name to the full page ad in the la times does make her culpable) is not neutral. she took a specific side by not including the israeli government or military in the protest. she may not have been responsible for the deaths of civilians and children but her actions support the side of those that killed the most. arafat and rabin received the nobel peace prize in '94 but as far as i can see on either's wiki page neither men are described as humanitarians, nor should they be. Marxwasright (talk) 00:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
I beg to differ. When you assert that we cannot call her humanitarian based on her signing a petition, you are making a political statement, much as your username makes a statement. She didn't put her name on an ad in the Los Angeles Times, a writer or publicist did. Regardless of whom she supported for whatever reason, it is not POV to refer to her as humanitarian based on her other works. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:52, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Agree with Wildhartlivie. If you take issue with "humanitarian", find a source that specifically disputes this description. --NeilN talk to me 01:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
kidman made a political statement. saying she is a humanitarian with this knowledge is a political statement. it's a double standard. end of story. i'm not asking you to agree with my political views, i'm asking you to maintain the democratic principles of wikipedia. my user name is not the issue here. whether it was her publicist who signed it or not is not the issue. this debate is already framed politically which is exactly why calling her humanitarian, despite what ever good deeds she may have done lacks neutrality. kidman is not some naive, helpless and penniless victim here. she knows where she stands. here is one british blogger's response to the la times ad. Marxwasright (talk) 02:51, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Please refrain from posting links to blogs and the like here. The tide is against your stance. It does not sway anyone. Signing a petition does not detract from the work she has done. End of discussion. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

how is that the end of discussion? because it doesn't sway you personally? i was asked to provide a source which differed from one that presents kidman as a humanitarian. the source was referring specifically to the backlash (see: An Open Letter to the 84 Celebrities: No to Israeli Terror and Hollywood Hypocrisy) against the celebrities which took out the full page ad. i'm merely trying to argue my point which is the point of this discussion. and my position stands: a "humanitarian" kidman is misleading and does not reflect all points of view. the 2006 Lebanon War was not some glitch in the ether. it was massively unpopular internationally, particularly in muslim countries. on John Pilger's wiki page:
"...Pilger described [Tony] Blair as a war criminal for supporting Israel's actions during the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict."
how is this not a valid objection? i propose that the word be taken out and replaced with something like "Kidman condemned Hamas and Hezbollah during the Lebanon war" in the introductory section or not have the word humanitarian in it at all. Marxwasright (talk) 05:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
In fact, you were asked to supply a reliable source that specifically disputes her description as humanitarian. For the record, blogspot articles are not reliable sources. See WP:RS. I am prepared to open a request for comments on this issue. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
The Day Nicole Kidman Shamed Our Nation Marxwasright (talk) 06:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Not sure what is the point of linking to this article, but it's hilarious. I may have had other things on my mind, but I completely missed the "massive boycott against Kidman in Australia, which began on August the 17th". In fact this is the first I've heard of it. As for "Nicole Kidman shamed the Australian people", that's something we Australians seem to be dealing with, mainly by not knowing anything about the shame we're supposed to be feeling. Ignorance is bliss, but you'd think someone would have mentioned how embarrassed they were feeling. So far, nobody's said anything to me, and I talk to a lot of people. "...when Nicole Kidman signed the anti-civil petition, she subsequently spoke on behalf of Australians." What? Ah, no. She didn't. So who is this Ali Harris, who seems quite happy to speak on behalf of all Australians while criticising Kidman for allegedly doing the same? This is a crappy article, and I don't say that solely because I disagree with it, but because it's incredibly biased, and draws huge conclusions without backing it up with anything resembling fact. That's the end of my rant about that article. As for describing Kidman as a humanitarian - her political views do not negate what she has done as a humanitarian. Rossrs (talk) 14:32, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Kidman's political views are not relevant to her status as a humanitarian. Gerardw (talk) 11:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Exactly Gerard. Dr. Blofeld White cat 11:41, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Running a search for "Nicole Kidman" and "humanitarian" yields over 78,000 Ghits, while adding the term "Lebanon" brings that down to less than 6000. On the other hand, running a search with "Nicole Kidman"+"not a humanitarian" brings up only quotes where she's said "It's not a humanitarian thing to do". The request was for a reliable source that specifically states she is not a humanitarian, not a link that merely mentions humanitarian and the petition. One does not disqualify the other. That's the point here. You are advocating that she cannot be a humanitarian and support Israel. You cannot support that with reliable sources (specifically books, newspapers or other publications). Wildhartlivie (talk) 14:52, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

So in summary it seems the overwhelming consensus is that the supported by reliable sources humanitarian characterization stays, and there's no need to continuing beating the horse. If marxwasright does not feel this properly reflects the consensus of the Wikipedia community I recommend an article WP:RFC as the next step. Gerardw (talk) 15:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

look, we're ignoring the elephant in the room here. there would undoubtedly be a considerable amount of people (particularly in the arab and muslim world) who would object to labeling kidman (or anyone who took a similar stance for that fact) as a humanitarian based on her position on the lebanon war. how can you not see that? why is wikipedia being used as a promotional tool for actors by their sycophantic fans? Wildhartlivie you say:
"Regardless of whom she supported for whatever reason, it is not POV to refer to her as humanitarian based on her other works."
by this logic if i were a mass murderer but also donated considerably to charities i could still be called a humanitarian. by default, kidman's stance on the war would be classified as anti-humanitarian (regardless of my own views) in - not all but - many peoples' eyes. why would you choose to ignore that fact? you also say:
"Signing a petition does not detract from the work she has done."
as i've stated, the war was controversial. kidman essentially gave an endorsement to an army that uses white phosphorous among other things on civilians. how does her charity work absolve her of this? fine, it's a crappy article. who'd have thought there existed crappy journalists? but why are we glossing over the facts that kidman and the signatories' letter was 1. polarizing, and 2. essentially racist? Marxwasright (talk) 03:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
The humanitarian work and signing the letter are not mutually exclusive. I think there's an attempt to give undue weight to the letter. XLerate (talk) 04:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
User Maxwasright. Is backing up all his arguments as a contradiction of supporting Israel during the war against Hezbollah and being humanitarian. There are plenty of people that would argue that during the Israel -Hezbollah conflict the most huminatian-like position would be to support the state of Israel against the acts of the terrorist group Hezbolla and how the arab world may percieve her actions. Wikipedia is for the whole world to use and enjoy under common respect of all beliefs just wait until enough religious leaders of the arab world find "indecent" comments, facts or arguments on wikipedia for it to be labeled a blasfemy. And you want us to strike the adjective humanitaran from Nicole Kidman. Let's be serious. Trankilo1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.17.170.211 (talk) 21:30, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Marxwasright comes at this from the stand point that the Israeli position is wrong. That it his opinion. Many would argue the opposite. Israel was attacked first by the terrorist group, Hezbollah. Why no similar outrage against Hezbollah? Is he advocating that Hezbollah is a humanitarian organization, or that those who side with them are humanitarians? Does Hezbollah not use weapons that kill civilians too? Was it not racist for Hezbollah to attack Israelis? It was not the act of war that Kidman supported, it was the right of a sovereign nation to defend itself against a preemptive strike. That position does not negate her humanitarian work. In fact it advocates non aggression. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.67.234.133 (talk) 06:55, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Award sites and identifying third party reliable sources

On most major awards, it is easily veriable that the award show took place and is reported in neutral third-party reliable sources. Unfortunately tonight's entry does not fall in that category. Produce a reliable sourced citation and the edit will most likely stick. However, there is a caveat. Most items added to an article cannot be considered trivial otherwise they are subject to removal.--Morenooso (talk) 05:32, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The problem with this citation is that it comes from and wikilinks to a self-published site. There are no reliable third party sources covering it. Additionally, at this time the website seems trivial and does not notably appreciate or improve this article.--Morenooso (talk) 08:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Upcoming projects section

Should this section even exist? It seems like upcoming projects can change in many ways and that we would need a crystal ball to know for sure what is actually upcoming. Thoughts? Thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk 15:18, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

These productions change constantly and are difficult to update. In The Danish Girl, the part of Gottlieb has been reportedly given to Charlize Theron[2], then Gwyneth Paltrow [3] then Uma Thurmond [4]. The original director of the project apparently also quit.
“Little Bee”: Nothing had been done toward producing it as of July 2009. The book was only optioned. [5]
“Just Go With It” is unsourced but filming is apparently completed. [6] Waiting until filming of these projects is completed would prevent article errors in casting and the updating headaches. Eudemis (talk) 16:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Awards

--91.154.108.165 (talk) 15:05, 14 December 2010 (UTC) Nicole Kidman has got a Golden Globe nomination in 2011 for rabbit hole, its been conferm by the Golden Globes website!

Who deleted all the awards in the film list sexion, put it back!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.154.109.124 (talk) 19:23, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

This must stop. Every single award is listed on her IMDB page. If you are deleting all of HER awards then why not Meryl Streep, Tom Hanks, Bette Davis, Marion Cotillard, etc etc? Why are you ONLY deleting Kidmans? She was nominated for these things, please refrain from deleting it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xeser (talk • contribs) 14:10, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, we only list notable awards. Also, imdb.com is not a reliable source. The other articles you mention just haven't gotten clean up yet. Hope that helps, --CrohnieGalTalk 14:29, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Sorry to name your reversion as vandalism when it seems to have been made in good faith. I second what Crohnie has said, imdb is not reliable, anyone can edit it just like wikipedia (all be it with slightly less freedom). With someone like Kidman who has been nominated and has won many major awards in the film world, it is only appropriate to list those major ones. Thanks for bringing up those other biographies that have similar issues i will get onto them in the near future. Monkeymanman (talk) 16:23, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Agree. Only list major awards like Oscar, Emmy, etc. --BwB (talk) 19:50, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

--91.154.97.130 (talk) 14:47, 1 January 2011 (UTC) Screen Actors Guild Awards and Sattelite Awards are important aswell, can somebody put them in the film section and Saturn Awards —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.154.97.130 (talk) 15:11, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

SAGA awards could perhaps go into the article but could you find the refs first. Monkeymanman (talk) 23:35, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

DeadSend4 (talk) 23:03, 16 April 2011 (UTC) A contributor has an issue with me adding TWO award nominations to Kidman's filmography, now I don't see what the problem is. At first he says it's not prestegious, but a SAG Award nomination is notable and it is ALSO noted in her previous films. Also her Independent Spirit Award nomination, it's also notable and it's her first nomination. I don't understand why this person is having such an issue that I add TWO....TWO! award nominations to her filmography, the excuse that they're 'not important' is ridiculous.

I can understand how an editor might look at filmographies in other articles, think that comprehensive lists of awards, minor and major, are the done thing, and then be confused when there is a line drawn here. There are some articles that have a complete list of awards contained in the filmography table, some that have no awards at all, and some like this, that try to limit the awards to the most notable/relevant. Of the three, I think this option is the most difficult one to monitor. I agree that awards should not dominate and I agree that some awards are of no value at all. There is an article that contains information specifically about Kidman's awards - List of awards and nominations received by Nicole Kidman. I think it needs a ton of work, and I do not like the format one little bit, but it seems redundant to me to have any awards listed in Kidman's filmography table, when it potentially duplicates the effort of the awards page. Perhaps separating the awards from filmographies consistently is the way to go, and that's something that perhaps could be discussed further at WP:ACTOR. I think the way the awards are dealt with in articles such as Natalie Portman, Helen Mirren, Angela Bassett is much more effective, and those articles give the impression of having 'tackled' the problem, which is still under discussion here. If the award table gets too big, we could always move it to its own article, but if we got all the awards out of the filmography table, we won't have the issue of distinguishing between notable and non-notable awards or the burden of enforcing an idea that is not universally held. For example, some film commentators regard the Golden Globes as a bit of a joke, more about publicity than artistic merit, while a New York Film Critics' Award has the aura of legitimacy about it, despite being less well known. It's not always cut and dried and not something we should need to get involved in. Rossrs (talk) 09:38, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Oscars 2011

--91.154.97.87 (talk) 13:57, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Nicole Kidman has been nominated for an Academy Award for Best Actress, source oscar.com

New rewrite

This article is being rewritten but needs checking. Some information is not sourced and there are some errors being found in some of the comments being made. There is over quoting WP:QUOTEFARM and undue weight too. I am having problems checking through because my browser keeps freezing up after I open the references. I went through a section that I knew the movies quite well and made some changes. I just wanted to bring this to anyone attentions. Thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk 10:12, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Reposting of note placed at User talk:Jane his wife

I understand you are a newcomer to Wikipedia and may not understand all the policies and guidelines as linked to in the above welcome note. Your actions at Nicole Kidman, which largely consist of reverting other editors, making snide comments in your edit summaries, and which overall smacks of a WP:OWN violation is not in keeping with the collegial, collaborative way we work on Wikipedia. Several editors, particularly over the last two days, have reverted some of your edits, many of which read as if your the actress' publicist and thus violate WP:TONE. When multiple editors are reverting you, that should be an indication that perhaps your edits are not those of the consensus. I am going to the article and reverting it to one of the other editors' versions. I advise you not to continue your incipient edit war, and to get into the habit of discussing things on the talk page. Otherwise, it may be necessary to call in an admin, in order to prevent blind reversions and edit warring. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I would say, to Jane his wife, that rather than reverting three other editors that the proper next step should be visiting Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and initiating action there.--Tenebrae (talk) 02:55, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
This editor was blocked indefintely for being a sockpuppet. Jane his wife is the third account editing this page as DeadSend4 is the same editor who has also edited this article near the time that Jane his wife edited along with this user editing with IP's. I feel taking the article back to prior the time this editor and their socks edited this page due to a lot of errors, multiple policy and guidelines violations and the article reading in too many place as gossipy and other things that have been noted by multiple editors. If there is anything of use then we can use the history of the article and add it back to the article the proper way. It's common to remove banned editors edits which is what I have done. Thanks for understanding. --CrohnieGalTalk 17:52, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Oh, my. You also reverted a great deal of work I did this morning, which removed some of the problems that now appear in this old version. Might there be a middle ground? For example, could we go back to my last version, which addressed a lot of the problems you mention in your edit summary, and additionally simply remove all the critics' quotes, to get rid of the WP:QUOTEFARM issue? I went through the article very carefully for puffy, press-release-y WP:TONE issues, and I'm concerned that we don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. What do you think? --Tenebrae (talk) 20:16, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Sorry I just noticed this comment. Yes by all means do as you say above. I just wanted to get rid of the policy errors. I won't stand in your way to improve the article. Bogged down in real life right now so I can't help. --CrohnieGalTalk 18:13, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

DeadSend4 (talk) 05:02, 16 April 2011 (UTC) First off, I would like to have my screename changed to 'Jane his wife' but since that account is blocked I thought I'd explain myself with this one. So please do not block me for there is no other way I can explain my previous edits. For starters, I notice that the article has a few sentences that were one of the reasons the edit war began in the first place. These edits include her attempted roles in Ghost, which were there to begin with. While doing my edits I completely ignored those sentences and just let them be since I figured they were sourced. So this edit war began and one of the contributors was telling me I shouldn't add those pieces of information since it's not relevant. While I agreed with him I never not once added or modified those pieces of information so why is it that once I edit the article that is pointed out. Further more, why is it that one of the first issues within the edit war is still on the article. Clearly, it wasn't important to begin with, so it seems the edit war started for other reasons which I will discuss later but I just want to point that out to everyone. I did not even add that bit of information, that was there before I even came along. That sentence about her having the part in Panic Room needed to citation dated back to two years ago, I went out of my way to find a source for that and then it became an issue at to whether or not it was important. Then why ask for a citation if it shouldn't be there in the first place, I didn't think adding a citation would then result in a dispute over whether or not something that I did not place there in the beginning is now a problem. In my opinion, her voice does appear in the film, she was going to be in the film and it is important. There's MANY films where uncredited cameos are not included. Also, it's by a acclaimed director that wanted to work with Kidman, I found 3 separate sources so I feel that it's important. As for the Ghost and the other film I can't think of, I'll remove it since that was one of the reasons why this contributor in particular wanted to through an edit war with me.

Ok now for the other thing I was accused of doing, adding 'fluff' or PR-friendly remarks in the article. I want you all to do me a favor, visit Britney Spears Beyoncé Knowles, Lady Gaga, Carrie Underwood, Meryl Streep, Jack Nicholson, (all of which I never edited) I could go on, all of these articles list their accomplishments whether it's Grammys, Oscar, #1's, worldwide successes, notable career moments, etc. If anything I even added the information about Bewitched being a box office disaster and her winning the Razzie award. I added how some films were poorly recieved, just because a lot of her films have a had acclaim for her performance alone doesn't mean I'm trying to put her in a 'perfect' light. I edited a part of Christina Aguilera's vocal ability section and added in the part about criticism over her oversinging, voice, etc. Yes musicians, politicians, actors are all different but I'm just showing you all accusing me of making her page "PR-Puff" that it's simply not the case. So what's wrong if the film's she's in e.g. The Hours Rabbit Hole Moulin Rouge! give her universal acclaim. What's wrong with adding reviews AND the awards she's been nominated for? Lastly, about this specific complaint I receieved. Why...seriously, why does there need to be citations regarding her Golden Globe Award nominations? For starters I don't think any other actors articles have that silly rule, and...if any of you paid attention (I'm looking at you contributors who complained about me) you'll see I actually LINKED the award show year to whatever award it was. For example her nomination at the 65th Golden Globe Awards or whatever it may be, you can click the link there and it will take to the page of the actual award show itself. It's not like I was making up the nominations. So why did someone remove the edit of her winning her Golden Globe for To Die For along with other edits. Guys, I'm not trying to make her out to be the second coming of Christ, she's actually got 3 Golden Globe awards and a lot of acclaim, I don't get it.

Lastly, and if there is anything else I think of I will come back and add but one of the other complaints about me was the 'quote pool' while I did add a lot of quotes I don't think it's any different that articles that off Amy Adams, Mila Kunis, Anne Hathaway actreses that have been out way less than Kidman yet have around the same amount. So I don't get it, is she not allowed to have a certain amount of articles, information about her?

Again, no one has bothered to read this, yet I keep getting my edits reverted PEOPLE! WHAT DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND ABOUT MY EDITS?! Tene...whatever its name is is ONLY making my edits reverted because I am a sock puppet, considering I've only been editing on this account and this account only it's obvious I'm not a sock puppet anymore and am not using any alternative screename. That is NOT a reason to revert my edits. AGAIN WHY ARE MY EDITS BEING REVERTED? I removed the sentence about her audition for ghost and all the useless things that the contributors complained about and this person with no life continues to revert my edits without ANY explanation other than "oh well he's posted here before under another name" SO WHAT?! I fixed the page and this is my ONLY screename! Get over it. Jesus Christ.DeadSend4 (talk) 18:52, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Apparently, username (talk) continues to make edits to my page and is now saying I have so many issues with other contributors. What other contributors? It's just you. Yet no one seems to care that I've added so much information to her page, if you don't like PARTS of it then why revert the WHOLE thing? I just don't understand this contributors constant need to be on my back everytime I make an edit. I personally think he has something against Nicole Kidman, again look at the other actresses who have been acting less years than Nicole. They have QUOTES, ACCOLADES, AWARDS, HEADINGS, so why can't Kidman have any of these? I even notice other contributors from years ago who add the awards Miss Kidman has won (as an example) and someone comes and removes them leaving the contributor asking why this is the issue with this actress and not Meryl Streep Robert DiNiro now I am not saying she is on the same level as these actors, in fact...and not that it matters, there's other actors I admire more than Kidman, but that doesn't matter. ALLLL I wanted to do was add more information about her films and her co-stars. Instead of putting, "Kidman appeared in 1995's Batman" I included her co-stars, box office receipts, and a maybe a review if it is needed, I only put that if it's a role she's acclaimed for. But again look at someone's page like Mila Kunis who's half of Kidman's age and you'll see they do the same thing. I have edited that page by the way so before (talk) looks for my edit there to revert...it's not there. It's just an example.

I took out about 3 or 4 quotes, words like 'acclaimed' since my last edit war from a few weeks ago. Why can't you go section by section and point out the issues you have with every sentence I contributed rather than REVERT THE ENTIRE THING. Even silly things like adding a sag award nomination or Independent Spirit award to her page, it's ridiculous. Again, you guys are making it seem like I'm praising her to the high heavens, yet I was the one that included her commercial failures, razzie award, and film flops when before they weren't even there. So no, I'm not being biased and trying to praise her. Guys, she has an Oscar, multiple awards, I think she deserves some structure and length in her article. Am I talking to myself here or is everyone anti-Kidman? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeadSend4 (talk • contribs) 20:34, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok I just did a step by step explanation of the edits I've been trying to make, I feel like I've come to a compromise, going through the last reverted edits, I added what I THINK should be included and added the citations I FOUND and included them back into the article, added her SAG Award count which kept getting reverted amongst other things. Anyone have anything to say or any input regarding this? Or all we just going to stay silent? DeadSend4 (talk) 21:35, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Tenebrae clearly does not read my edits, he continues to delete my citations that are valid, amongst other things. Since he is choosing to ignore me and what I'm telling him can someone tell him what he is doing if marking the article with mistakes. Am I a broken record here, how many times do I have to say she has FIVE SAG award nominations, the citations are being reverted back to having no citation, adding unecessary edits. DeadSend4 (talk) 00:12, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia operates by consensus. Since at least four other editors find your wholesale edits questionable, perhaps it's possible that rather than all four or five of us being wrong that perhaps it is simply one person who can't see that the bulk of his edits are objectionable. Wikipedia does not believe in edit-warring, as you have consistently done. You have been reported, in fact, for not one but two 3RR vios in three days.
Your abusive comments toward other editors, punctuated by the poor manners of all-caps, cannot continue; no one, yourself included, has to right to hurl insults and schoolyard epitaphs at other editors. Does the fact that your behavior has already resulted in one block not made an impression on you that perhaps you are behaving wrongly, and it is not the four or five other editors at fault?
Also, the fact that your edit are highly similar to those of the blocked puppetmaster leads your colleagues to a reasonable deduction regarding this.
I'm sorry it's come to this, but you are the subject of two filings so far for admin intervention -- one for your gross incivility, the other for your edit warring and 3RR vios. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:54, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Filming of Flirting vs Days of Thunder

Regardless of release date, does anyone know which was filmed first - Flirting or Days of Thunder? It's pretty difficult to believe Days of Thunder was filmed before Flirting.. for many reasons. Thanks. --CutOffTies (talk) 18:00, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Kidman in th Panic Room?

I reverted this though there is conflicting information about this, mainly from imdb.com. According to Hollywood.com Kidman was the first choice, but she got a knee injury so Jodie Foster took the part. [7] --CrohnieGalTalk 13:53, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Did a search and will revert myself since it seems that Kidman did use her voice to talk on the phone in the movie Panic Room [8]. --CrohnieGalTalk 14:25, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

producing

kidman has produced Rabbit Hole and te upcomming move Monte Carlo, cant we have separeted section for the producing credits??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathiassandell (talk • contribs) 12:27, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Separation date wrong

Kidman and Cruise announced separation in February 2001, not May 1998. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StephanieAS (talk • contribs) 18:07, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

BLP violation removed, stable version restored

I see some disruptive edit warrior has decided to flout multiple policies.

First off, the stupid suggestion that it is me that needs to go to the talk page to remove this policy violating category. Wrong.

There is the most recent addition, made by some random new editor who also violates WP:BLPCAT on another article. That edit doesn't have WP:CONSENSUS, since it was removed as soon as I saw it. Or if you want to look further back in the history of the article try this addition (relevant section) was reverted by me. and a second attempt by the same editor was reverted by Spanglej (talk · contribs) citing WP:BLPCAT. Or another addition (relevant section) was reverted by XLerate (talk · contribs) again citing WP:BLPCAT. So that's three editors in good standing objecting explicity per WP:BLPCAT to the addition of this category.

Now for WP:BLPCAT, which clearly hasn't been read despite me pointing it one not once but twice.

Categories regarding religious beliefs or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources.

Note the word "and" after the comma, this has a critical meaning, at least for those capable of understanding the English language. It is falsely asserted that Kidman meets this, wrong yet again.

Let's break it down into the two possible options.

Option one. The subject needs to have publicly self-identified and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life. So due to the use of the word and, the "relevant to their public life" part is different to the "publicly self-identified" part, you can't argue because she's publicly self-identified that's also evidence of it being relevant to her public life. Someone going to church is their private life, not their public life.

Option two. The subject needs to have publicly self-identified and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their notability. Not sourced at present, and I doubt you'll find any sources since the number of actors whose religion is relevant to their notability can probably be counted on the number of legs of a landmine victim.

So stop violating WP:BLP and WP:CONSENSUS. If you want to add the category, you provide actual evidence that WP:BLPCAT is met. Three editors in good standing say otherwise. 2 lines of K303 11:19, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Incude category. You haven't shown a consensus on this article. This is the first time you've brought it up on the talk page. Now regular editors of the article can discuss it. On articles in which the Judaic religion is involved, the general consensus is that if the subject has made it public in an interview, that very act has made it relevant to their notability. If you don't believe me, try removing Jewish categories from any article in which the subject has publicly self-identified. There is no reason to treat Catholicism any differently. Yworo (talk) 15:40, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Comment, this is related to her notability, because she was questioned as to the compatibility of her appearance in The Golden Compass with her Catholicism. Yworo (talk)

Agree with the removal of the cat, per BLPCAT, Kidman's beliefs are not relevant to her public life or to her notability. Mo ainm~Talk 23:32, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Of course they are, her appearance in The Golden Compass was publicly criticized, she publicly responded, and there are numerous news articles in reliable sources covering this. Yworo (talk) 23:36, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Where in the sources is she criticised, plenty for the film but not her. Mo ainm~Talk 23:43, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
As I said, there are many more sources. In any case, she specifically states that her religious beliefs would not have let her do the film except that it had been watered down. That's a public statement that directly involves her religious beliefs together with the career for which she is notable. Yworo (talk) 23:48, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
So you agree that none of the sources you provided are criticising Kidman? Mo ainm~Talk 00:02, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree that its immaterial whether these particular sources do or not, given her public statements that her religious beliefs limit the roles she is willing to take. See quotation just below. Yworo (talk) 00:06, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Nicole Kidman, who stars in “The Golden Compass,” spoke with Entertainment Weekly about the film. She told the magazine that she was raised Catholic and that the Catholic Church is part of her “essence.” She added that she wouldn't be able to do the film if she “thought it were at all anti-Catholic.”
The sweet result is that the religious message put forth in the film version of the book “has been watered down a little,” according to Kidman. -Nicole Kidman's Faith Shifts 'Golden Compass' Needle (News Max)

What the dickens is Yworo dribbling about? With the exception of the single diff clearly stated as being for another article, the diffs are for THIS article, did you even bother to look at them? Obviously you have grave trouble with the English language considering you completely ignored the fact that messages like yours have no place on my talk page (FYI - I didn't bother reading it, I never do if people aren't smart enough to follow the instructions). I have shown quite clearly that three editors in good standing have reverted multiple attempts to ADD a policy violating category to THIS article. The stable consensus version of this article is without the category, or is that too difficult for you to understand? Shall I use words with less syllables to make it simpler for you?

As for "regular editors", sorry you and your little chums don't get to own this article and decide policy doesn't apply to it. I looked at the sources, none of them satisfy WP:BLPCAT. This category does not get added back without consensus, and I object to its inclusion as a failure of BLPCAT. If you're that bothered about gaining consensus for inclusion you could easily have waited until other people had chance to assess the sources you provided and then added the category if there was consensus, that you chose not to do that speaks volumes in my opinion.

I didn't know it was misrepresent a source week anyway, did I miss the annoucement? I'll also ask where are the sources that question or criticise Kidman as has been claimed, I notice that question was completely side-stepped when Mo ainm asked it. 2 lines of K303 11:03, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

You need to address your tone, which is not collegial. Clearly you have the mistaken belief that this is act out week. Rant all you want, but I won't reply any further to posts with the tone you've used in this thread. I've fully justified the category and the text merely needed some minor rewording. No one has supported your opinion at the thread on the biographies of living people noticeboard, which you didn't even bother notify me about. Continue to edit tendentiously and I'll take appropriate action. I'd call you an inappropriate name so you could report it and experience the boomarang effect, but I refuse to stoop to your level. I've been on Wikipedia longer than you have and have made more edits, you have no effing right to speak to me this way. Yworo (talk) 14:53, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Here are some further sources discussing Kidman's faith, and its affect on her career. Due to her previous relationship with scientology, and its involvement in her relationship with Cruise, how the scientology/catholic rift is affecting her relationshp with her kids, and how it was involved with golden compass, and her marriage to Urban, the name of her new child (Faith) - I think it is clearly relevant, and meets the threshhold for BLPCAT as it is relevant for both her personal and professional life, AND she has publicly claimed it as her faith, per the BLPCAT guideline. Additionally, the negative aspect of having the category added is extremely minimal. . All sources refer specifcallly to Kidman's catholocism and how it is involved in either her personal or professional life

I Like Being Catholic: Treasured Traditions, Rituals, and Stories (New York: Doubleday, 2000) Ms. Kidman is qouted (on page 103) as saying:

"I really don´t discuss religion or my beliefs. But when Stanley (Kubrick) died, I had an extraordinary night. I actually went out alone to St. Patrick´s Cathedral and spent an hour and a half in the church. It was candlelit, the wind was whipping around that night, and I left at nine, when they close the doors. I thought as I came onto the street: Well, I suppose once a Catholic, always a Catholic. It was very humbling, I received such solace." (italics in original text)

"I was raised a Catholic," said the very fair, very blonde ex-Mrs. Tom Cruise in a Prada dress (in aubergine, my female colleagues told me). Late afternoon California sunshine streaming through the room made her appear whiter than white-but in a radiant, dazzling way. "Catholicism is a part of my life. Last Easter time was lovely because I was back with my family. That's the first time in a long while that I spent Easter with my huge extended Catholic family, with aunts and cousins from all over the place. Being a Catholic was so much a part of my childhood, that it still remains with me."

Gaijin42 (talk) 15:17, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

No one is doubting she is Catholic but Kidman's beliefs are not relevant to her public life or to her notability. Will everyone who thanked God in their acceptance speeches also get this Cat added? Mo ainm~Talk 20:42, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Read some of throe articles, that is much more than that. She talks in depth about how leaving Scientology and reverting to Catholicism affected her relationship with her children, about getting her marriage to cruise annulled so she could marry Urban in a Catholic ceremony, about how she missed mass and Sundays while in Scientology, about golden compass, Catholicism as part of her 'essence' etc. I'm not sure I understand what the resistance is to the cat. If the sources above do not qualify , then basically someone would have to be a priest before the cat could be applied. What is the negative aspect of having the cat applied? Being catholic is not a negative or controversial thing, so I'm not sure what the big resistance is. IOf we were claiming she was a nazi or belonged to the kkk or something, then I can see that you have a really high bar to achieve, but this is pretty vanilla.Gaijin42 (talk) 20:51, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Further I think its pretty disingenuous to say that "the subject's beliefs are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources." is not met, when the number of sources listed above are commenting about it. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:57, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Her religion is definitely significant to her public life, for several different reasons, and this has been adequately covered by the media to meet WP:BLPCAT. Mo is now edit warring for the sake of edit warring. Yworo (talk) 21:31, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, her Catholic religious affiliation as per some of the comments she has made is clearly relevant to her and a self declaration of note and I support her inclusion in the cat. Youreallycan (talk) 23:56, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Due to certain editors wasting my valuable time elsewhere I'll have take a look at the sources later, but having looked at this and seen the only mention of religion is "As for their upbringing? "Yes, they're being raised as Scientologists," she told Marie Claire. "I don't want to go there."" I'm not necessarily holding out much hope. 2 lines of K303 10:37, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

While I agree some of those sources are pretty weak, we are not using them as RS for any particular fact, since it is already known that Kidman is Catholic. The point is merely to show that religion "is relevant to their public life or notability". Gaijin42 (talk) 14:12, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Before anyone takes my head off, I edited the descent categories, but the Roman Catholic category was readded by User:The Devil's Advocate. Looks to me like that means there is a consensus of 4 to 2 for inclusion, with only ONIH and Mo opposing on this talk page since additional text and citations were added. Yworo (talk) 22:41, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
You can make that 5 to 2. Having looked at the relevant material, I can't see why Kidman's own statements regarding how her faith is relevant to decisions regarding her work in a significant way cannot be taken at face value. The category seems valid to me. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:49, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Irish descent based on unreliable source

The source used to support Kidman's Irish descent [9] seems to more of a blog post than a news item. The craziest thing is, it's in the Technology section of the site. The post itself is sourced to ancestry.com, which is itself not a reliable source. I believe we need a better source for this or the claim and category should be removed. Yworo (talk) 16:04, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Here are more.Murry1975 (talk) 10:32, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

  • - Yes, this appears to originate from someones ancestry search engine result. Two of her thirty two great great great grandparents were from Ireland. Is that two out of 32 then? What about the other 30, where are they from? Youreallycan (talk) 11:34, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
The others were as far as be found Scottish , English and maybe German but it still proves Irish decent does it not? Which is the catergory not second generation or third generation Irish people. Three reliable sources provided.Murry1975 (talk) 14:45, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
It is so distant and such a small percentage of her ancestry as to be of nil value to her biography. If her distant ancestry was notable then yes, but its not. It is also totally undue to focus on six percent of her ancestry as if that six percent is especially notable and to ignore the rest. Is that six percent of her ancestry of special interest to you? Youreallycan (talk) 15:15, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Oddly enough it gets mention on Barrack Obamas page.Murry1975 (talk) 18:35, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
It gets mentioned along with all his other ancestry based on reliable news reports because he brought it up while visiting Ireland. Completely different situation. Yworo (talk) 19:01, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Not worthy of mention, IMHO. --BwB (talk) 19:08, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
So a person plays an Irish person herself of Irish ancestry and it doesnt get mention or even a cat tag?Murry1975 (talk) 20:20, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
See WP:UNDUE, it gives undue weight to 6% of her heritage. Yworo (talk) 20:34, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I would support a CAT of her being of irish ancestry if the fact is reliably sourced, as it is minimally intrusive, and in my opinion a cat link is not undue weight. (I woudl then also support adding cats for any other ancestries which can also be reliably sourced). I think a narrative reference to irish ancestry is probably undue, unless significant mention was made in multiple RS to make it highly notable, or if she had commented specifically on taking roles due to that heritage etc. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:22, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Please note that categories do not have citations. We are required to have narrative with citations in order to include a category. The first sentence of WP:BLPCAT is "Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers, so the case for each category must be made clear by the article text and its reliable sources." The point being that if something is not significant enough to mention in the article, it is not significant enough to add the category either. The reader should not come to the article, search the text for mention, and be left wondering "Why is this category even here?" Yworo (talk) 21:38, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough, then I would say the cat should only be included, if the text could be included. That would be if it had multiple RS sources, or she had talked about her ancestry, or its effect on her life or career. Note that I would be fairly liberal with such evidence, as per my argument regarding catholocism above, but at least some effort to reach the bar must be met. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:43, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Besides being based on reliable sources which do not themselves depend on unreliable ones (like ancestry.com), we would have to, like in Barrack Obama, give a complete description of her ancestry, including Scottish, English, German, and what not at the same level of detail, and include those categories as well. So the real question is, is a breakdown at that level of detail (great great great grandparents) really relevant here? Yworo (talk) 21:53, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
I think I disagree about both points. Verifiability, not truth. We do not second guess reliable sources. If the reporting source has been determined to be a reliable source in general, we do not have a policy of further investigating tier primary sources. If you believe otherwise, please provide a guideline that says so. Further in that point. While ancestry.com is not itself an RS, as anything produced from it is likely OR relying on their primary sources - that is in fact the entire purpose for going with the RS who is fully free to do the OR on our behalf. Regarding the undue, I think that would depend on the way it was worded. "She is of Irish decent" - surely not good. "Some of her ancestors were Irish" I think fine, if it can be linked to why it is notable for her "Some of her ancestors were Irish, and she thought about their history as she prepared for role X". "She named her child X because of Irish connection from some of her ancestors". etc. Obviously we have to avoid SYNTH in such statements, so the RS would have to make the conection for us - but I do not think naming one portion of ancestry relies on a full genelogy survey - perhaps only one part is notable. Again, this would all be on a case by case basis so I would need to see the source that was being used and what it said to pass judgement in a particular case. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:01, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Actually, whether or not a generally reliable source is reliable for a particular fact is frequently discussed and decided by consensus. Sources are often rejected if it is clear that the particular piece of information was originally sourced from say Wikipedia, IMDb, Ancestry.com or other sources that allow user-submitted data. Entire Indian publishers have been rejected as reliable sources because some of their books have material shown to be copied from Wikipedia. Yworo (talk) 22:16, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

In the current case, I believe the ancestry.com based sources should not be used, as they would be undue. However this source lists the ancestry in a nice narrative format, which I think could be used and seamlessly added into her early life section just as it is in the RS. That would justify the category imo. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:15, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

That's a reasonable source for stating that her father was of Scottish descent and her mother was of Irish descent, which is how is should be added, along with both categories. Presuming other editors agree and we get a consensus on that. Yworo (talk) 22:18, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
As you were the primarily opposed editor, I think I will be bold and add them, and if BigWeeBoy (who only made a "not worth it") argument or others object we can revert and discuss more. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:21, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Which category is appropriate? There does not appear to be just a "scottish/irish ancestry" cat, just "american of.." and "australian of..." . She was born in hawaii, so American, but known generally as Australian, but lives in america. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:29, 11 January 2012 (UTC) As she has dual citizenship, I think I am going to go with the answer "all of the above". Gaijin42 (talk) 22:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I tweaked the wording. She shouldn't have the American categories. That was an accident of birth, she identifies as Australian. You'll note that there are no other American categories listed, and IMO should not be added. Yworo (talk) 22:35, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Im ok with that in general as I know she identifies as Australian. But she was born here, and she does live here. Further, she has been at least somewhat involved in US politics (per refs already in the article). Gaijin42 (talk) 22:39, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
And if she was at all ambivalent about her national identification, I'd be adding those categories myself. Yworo (talk) 22:44, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Sorry I didnt get back earlier, the page was gone. Agree with the proposal above.Murry1975 (talk) 00:23, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

According to the link previously in the article, some of Kidman's Irish ancestry comes from the Callachors. But they are ancestors on her father's side, not her mother's. So clearly, the "father of Scottish ancestry" claim isn't precisely correct (biography.com isn't that great a source). Anyway, I've changed the text to make it less specific so there's less room for error ("Kidman's ancestry includes Scottish and Irish."). All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 23:29, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Highest civilian honour

The 'Companion of the Order of Australia' ranks at number seven for civilians and overall eight.

  • Victoria Cross for Australia (military only)
  • Cross of Valour
  • Knight/Lady of the Order of the Garter
  • Knight/Lady of the Order of the Thistle
  • Member of the Order of Merit
  • Knight/Dame of the Order of Australia
  • Knight/Dame Grand Cross of the Royal Victorian Order
  • Companion of the Order of Australia
  • etc.....

Nford24 (Want to have a chat?) 08:40, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Grace of Monaco

Why does this keep getting removed? Kidman herself confirmed, at the emmys, that she's currently filming in France. She finished filming 'The Railway Man' awhile back too!

No good reason. It was scooped up by a revert where you disruptively removed a hidden comment from the lede sentence. So I have added it back. Films that have reached the production stage of filming can be included in filmographies. Previously it was only pre-production, which would violate WP:CRYSTAL. Elizium23 (talk) 23:53, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Before I Go To Sleep

The author of the book has confirmed Kidman is attatched to star, a film poster has been released and it's set to start filming the start of next year. Why isn't it there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.28.89.152 (talk) 22:10, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Production Company

I think we should talk about Kidman as a producer more, also that her company owns the rights to The Family Fang and How to Marry a Millionaire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.28.89.152 (talk) 22:15, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nicole_Kidman/Archive_2&oldid=1137045904"