![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
As if her stunning beauty, sophisticated personality, and intelligence weren't enough, Catherine knows how to choose clothes that make her even more sensational. According to critics, she wore the most elegant and sexiest dress at the 1999 Oscars, and she is always included in entertainment and fashion magazines.
Wow. I think our noses are a bit brown. Seriously, can we chop down the fangirly POV? Mike H 06:33, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)
As she is a native Welsh speaker... is it know if she has participated in any Welsh language projects? Drachenfyre
Why in the world do we care about the "dream home" in Wales? Too damn much celebrity filler crapola in these pages about contemporary stars.
What is the definition of "exotic beauty" please? And from just whose (ethnocentric) point of view is that exoticism determined? She does have, to this American anyway, what one might term a vaguely Mediterranean look -- is that what "exotic" is supposed to mean? And do non-Anglos find her "exotic"? My Chinese girlfriend found me "exotic" simply because my head-hair and beard-hair were different colors. Really, just because a page is written in English doesn't mean it should be so blindly ethnocentric.
--From observation, I would say that "exotic beauty" is a catchall phrase for non-"WASP"/blonde-blue looks. Yes, she does have a Mediterraenean look, not uncommon in Wales. (I'll add some historical links later.)I'm "non-Anglo," and she is beautiful, but not exotic, she actually resembles my mother(Irish/Welsh and a few other things) when she was in that age range. Exotic to me is a blue eyed blonde. I agree with you about the Anglocentric bias of that "exotic" statement. JBDay 21:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Can we have an authoritative reference for the "speaks Welsh fluently" comment? For every reference on the web claiming this, there is another (often in Welsh) contradicting it. Telsa 20:28, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
Whilst I'm at it, why does Catherine Zeta Jones (no hyphen) redirect to Catherine Zeta-Jones? Surely this is the wrong way around? Telsa 20:28, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
"She was born to Patrick Jones, a Welsh candy factory worker and Dia, a woman who was of Irish Catholic extraction and has two brothers."
Does this mean that Dia was of Irish Catholic extraction and had two brothers; or that Dia was of Irish Catholic extraction and Catherine has two brothers?
Btw, we don't have "candy factories" in Wales. Sweets, perhaps?
Telsa 13:49, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Some two years ago it was alleged in a big british newspaper that CZJ is in fact a full 10 years older than she admits (i.e. born 1959). What came out of that? Indeed she seems well along elderly Mr. Douglas which suggests she is not a young stupid chick but more mature.
If this were true, wouldn't she have said something to Jay Leno, on whose show she has appeared a number of times, about all those jokes about the age difference? "When they go to the movies together, he gets the 65-and-over discount, she gets the 12-and-under." Also "Who's your granddaddy?" She'd have had to say, "Come on, Jay, we're only 15 years apart, not 25! It's not as bad as you think." And, of course, if she were 46 instead of 36, that would only make her figure even more incredible. -- Pacholeknbnj
I was in school with her. I was born in 1969. Aredbeardeddwarf 21:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Rather than reverting "is"/"isn't" twice a day, perhaps the debaters of the vexed question of her Irishness could outline their reasons and sources for believing that she is or isn't Welsh, Welsh/Irish, or whatever here and come to some degree of consensus about it?
There seems on Wikipedia generally to be a split between people who believe that nationality/ethnicity is largely based on where you and your parents were born and brought up, and between people who believe that it is based upon where you, your parents, your grandparents, your great-grandparents and so on back until about 1700 were born and brought up, and that one great-grandparent from one place means that you also share that nationality/ethnicity/connection/what-have-you. I wonder if this split is at the root of what is happening here?
All that the article says (completely unsourced) is that her mother was of Irish Catholic "extraction". Perhaps it's just my reading of it, but this is a bit nebulous. In the UK, "of.. extraction" tends to imply a rather more distant connection than "came from there his/herself". Is this the case in other English-speaking countries? Is this one unsourced claim the basis of this entire ponderous series of reverts lumbering on just under the 3RR rule? Perhaps if we could find out what "of Irish Catholic extraction" means in the first place, we could get a bit closer? C'mon, people. Sources please? (Mind, I am still waiting for the source for the claim of her fluent Welsh. In the meantime, I note that she has now acquired French and Spanish too...)
-- Telsa 15:56, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, if there is not much of a debate, why have there been another four "is/isn't" reversions since I asked that? Can we keep WP:RS and WP:V in mind and have even one reliable source backing either claim?
And if her mother is Irish, why aren't we just saying that instead of this "of Irish extraction" phrasing?
-- Telsa 09:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
After Telsa told me about this on IRC, I attempted to make a compromise. Instead of "Welsh actress", I wrote "actress from Wales", which does state her nationality, but unambigously. I also added the origin in the introduction, but clearly as origin, again unambigouosly. I hope this will help. In a number of biographic articles on Wikipedia, ethnic background is in the introduction, so I don't see why that wouldn't be the case here.
By the way, Telsa tried to ask what "of Irish extraction" actually means, not to ask whether it is disputed. Nikola 09:28, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Does she have US citizenship. if yes she is a Welsh-American, if not she isn't, SqueakBox 15:44, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
-Pacholeknbnj is on crack. you dont become a u.s. citizen automatically. you have to apply. you even have to take a test. dont try to act like an expert when youre not.
I tried to delete 'Artemis Fowl' from her 2007 filmography - there is no real evidence this film even exists - and I've buggered it up a bit. Could someone please fix it? Thanks, and sorry. TheDingbat 00:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC) Catherin-Zeta-Jones might play Lily Munster in the upcoming comedy film The Munsters
The article gives it as both Swansea and Treboeth, so which is it to be? - Dudesleeper 16:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Can someone tell me why my paragraph about her name being used in the American version of "The Office" was deleted?
Regarding the recent edit by someone at 75.69.179.68:
Changed from:
Zeta-Jones attended the moderately-priced brothel, Dumbarton House in Swansea where she was apparently an average prostitute.
To:
Zeta-Jones attended Dumbarton House School in Swansea.
Does anyone have thoughts on that? A bit of a sharp turn I would suggest.
As for 75.69.179.68, the user has only one contribution. The network data is below.
OrgName: Comcast Cable Communications Holdings, Inc OrgID: CCCH-3 Address: 1800 Bishops Gate Blvd City: Mt Laurel StateProv: NJ PostalCode: 08054 Country: US
>> Checked : This is SCHOOL and the brothel stuff was lame —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.15.225.50 ( talk) 04:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
NetRange: 75.64.0.0 - 75.75.191.255 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.15.225.50 ( talk) 03:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
The statement that her father's mother is of "north Greek" origin is traceable to a CNN transcript of the Larry King Live show and been widely quoted. However listening to an audio of the interview she actually says "of not Greek origin". Listen to it at http://infoworld.koreanblog.com/entry/Everyones-Sweetheart-Catherine-Zeta-Jones-Oct-2001 and decide for yourself. 156.63.68.215 17:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)iwerdhon
I did not feel as if I should change the article but merely call attention to my refutation on the discussion page. If you want to leave misinformation in the article I guess you can. After all this is wikipedia. By the way, the Greeks already have enough famous people - Idon't see why you feel the need to claim people aren't Greek. Listen to the above link about the Larry King interview. 66.213.29.2 13:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)iwerdhon
Here is the transcript from the site I suggested: ZETA-JONES: Yes. Zeta is my grandmother’s name, who is of not Greek origin. But Zeta is a Greek name. And everyone thinks that I was, just put Zeta in to spice up Catherine Jones. And that’s completely untrue. And while on the subject of syntax, why would you say "but" (implying a contradiction?) Wouldn't you say "And" or "Because". The CNN transcript is a "rush transcript which may contain errors" according to CNN. I have contacted them twice with no response. Sorry, you are just plain incorrect and quoting a mis-heard transcript doesn't justify it. 66.213.29.2 19:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)iwerdhon (a Welshman)
I removed the "Hellenic friend". Why is the CNN transcript the only place this is shown and quoted from? A little research would show that "Zeta" is her grandmother's first name, not a surname. Furthermore if you investigate you will discover that it was the name of a ship on which her great-grandfather sailed. 156.63.68.237 18:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)Iwerdhon
In a personal correspondence with a woman related to Catherine Zeta Jones she informed me that CZJ's maternal grandfather was Welsh (William Fair) and that the maternal grandmother was Irish (Catherine O'Callaghan) 156.63.68.216 17:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)Iwerdhon
Hey Dudesleeper, did you listen to the interview? It's at http://infoworld.koreanblog.com/entry/Everyones-Sweetheart-Catherine-Zeta-Jones-Oct-2001 The CNN transcript is just plain incorrect. Do you have any other source to back up the CNN transcript? 66.213.29.2 ( talk) 14:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)iwerdhon
i alway enjoy the you look latina being latina is not a race a latina can have any phenotype on earth lol oh god the ignorance-- Wikiscribe ( talk) 05:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Obviously there's a long-term edit war here over her ethnicity. I take no sides; I ask only that you not link to disambiguation pages like Welsh. Wales, Welsh people, Welsh language, etc. are articles, but Welsh is not. Thanks. Ntsimp ( talk) 23:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Why is it that her name hyphenated on this website (and others)? Her first name is Catherine (a grandmother's first name) Her middle name is Zeta (the other grandmother's first name) Her last name (maiden) is Jones Hyphens usually appear when constructing a last name that is a composite of two or more (usually two). That is NOT what is happening with her name. More than anything else... She doesn't use a hyphen when spelling her name. (I can't believe I've wasted a few precious minutes of my life on this.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.167.30 ( talk) 14:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
The introduction currently states: "She won an Academy Award, BAFTA Award and a Screen Actors Guild Award and was nominated for a Golden Globe Award for portraying Velma Kelly in the 2002 film adaptation of Chicago, making her the first and only British actress to win in that category."
This is so nonsensical that I don't even know what it's TRYING to say. It sounds like it's referring to the Golden Globes, but of course she didn't win that, and if she had she stll wouldn't have been the first British actress to do so. Likewise with the Oscar, BAFTA and SAG Awards - British actresses have won all of these awards in the same category. Does anyone want to try and clarify, or should this last clause just be taken out?
Brianwilsonisgod (
talk)
12:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
On a side note, what might be considered interesting is that she was the first actress to win an Oscar for a musical for 30 years (I assume we don't count Coal Miner's Daughter as a musical), and the first to do so in the supporting category for over 40 years. Just a thought. Brianwilsonisgod ( talk) 13:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
OK - no responses to this, so I have simply removed the clause. If anyone knows what it was trying to say, and wants to put it back in so it makes sense, please feel free. Brianwilsonisgod ( talk) 14:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
The current picture of Catherine Zeta-Jones is not the most flattering and does not do justice to her. I don't know how, but could somebody please change it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.124.222 ( talk) 23:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
look at a beautiful actor/personality in wiki and chances are there is some comment in the discussion as to whether the picture does her justice or if she is jewish ... it's uncanny ... a picture is a picture, if it's not professionally altered or in the right light, it's still an image of her, let it be, or replace it ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.56.86.35 ( talk) 19:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Zeta Jones just received an award of CBE (commander british empire) from prince of Wales on feb 24 , so adding an "awards" paragraph to include this award, along with numerous others is warranted. /s emp hiley selassie, imp of ethiopia sr 69.121.221.97 ( talk) 18:16, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
I´m deleting this part because I couldn´t confirm it on the google and it´s out of place. "She confirmed her bisexuality in an interview with Hello magazine in 2003, and also revealed details of her previously unkown lesbian affair with Margaret Russell, a member of the production crew from Chicago.[12]" I think it needs a more reliable source. 85.240.23.177 ( talk) 18:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
The article name uses Zeta-Jones yet the article content uses Zeta Jones. Which is correct? - Mickraus ( talk) 21:43, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
After her parents won £10 at Bingo in the 1980s only £10? -- 85.181.238.41 ( talk) 13:03, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
< -- comment removed due to being libellous and a BLP vio -->
Her birth was registered in the 4th quarter of 1969, so the date as given in the article seems correct. The England and Wales Birth Marriage and Death records include:
Name: Catherine Zeta Jones Mother's Maiden Surname: Fair Date of Registration: Oct Nov Dec 1969 Registration district: Swansea Registration county: Wales Volume Number: 8b Page Number: 4595 87.243.194.122 ( talk) 00:43, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
I removed: "The name Zeta is reportedly taken from the Henry Bath ship “Zeta” that was captained by her great-grandfather." This is not a reliable source ("reportedly" by whom? The ship company also says "reportedly" and can't know why people get names). And it is unlikeky that the captain was here great-grandfather. The ship has been build in 1865 and sold and renamed in 1872. So there would have to be at least one generation more. -- 88.78.120.44 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:38, 20 February 2012 (UTC).
Why? There's loads of dark Welsh people; our ancestors come from Spain; after all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.71.136 ( talk) 19:52, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
'Zeta' is not one of her names. It is the first half of her hyphenated last name. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
31.55.91.144 (
talk)
16:58, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
HollyScoop website has her on a list of stars who were former strippers, this should be mentioned IMO even if it is untrue (to dispel it). Historian932 ( talk) 13:29, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
DUDE I SUGGEST YOU CONSULT YOUR BRITISH PASSPORT. LOOK UP THE PART THAT SAYS "Nationality" and it will say "British Citizen". Nationality and citizenship are synonymous as proven by the UK passport authorities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.51.72.251 ( talk) 02:02, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Jones's nationality is British citizen. "Welsh", "Scottish" "English" are NOT nationalities! "Irish" however is, Irish refers to a citizen of a sovereign state, with Ireland having gained its independence from the United Kingdom in December 1922. England, Wales and Scotland are part of the United Kingdom and are not separate, sovereign states. SO please stop changing back her nationality to "Welsh". This is incorrect! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.51.73.135 ( talk) 15:11, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
To User "GoodDay" and "IP", I support you using British as her nationality and citizenship, which are, for the large part, recognised internationally and used as synonyms. Hey! Don't shoot the messenger here! I'm just stating the way things are, without explicitly endorsing same or claiming that this is the way things should be. I'm just stating that things are like this and not that this is the right way to do things! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bibi999 ( talk • contribs) 22:42, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
The article states CZJ's father was of Welsh and Macedonian descent. However, most other articles I can find suggest her grandmother was Greek? Is the "Macedonian" Slavic ethnicity or northern Greek (and I know about the ethnic mixes in the region). Are there any sources the say her father considered himself of Slavic-Macedonian descent? (13:43, 22 January 2016 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.146.74.193 ( talk)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Dr. Blofeld ( talk · contribs) 17:23, 9 April 2016 (UTC) Will gladly review this either later or tomorrow morning.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:23, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
@ Krimuk90: Seriously, this is quite a brilliant article you've produced here in such a short space of time. In fact, I'm not sure I could do much better! This definitely has FA potential and I think with some further research and work and a solid peer review this could become a candidate. Will pass once addressed, but well done!♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:35, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
GA review – see
WP:WIAGA for criteria
References
Could someone please take a look at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category_talk:Catherine_Zeta-Jones#Image_additions 78.148.67.220 ( talk) 18:28, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Great work on the GA. Just one point, Catherine Zeta-Jones is defined by her Welshness. Prior to the excellent clean up from 1 April, her nationality was cited by three reliable sources (the BBC; The Daily Telegraph; and The Independent) at the end of the first sentence in the Lead. Reliable sources commonly define Zeta-Jones as Welsh, including the the BBC, ITV, The Daily Telegraph, Huffington Post, the Grauniad, Cosmopolitan, and even the Welsh Government. Common usage shows Zeta-Jones is described as Welsh. As MOS:INFOBOX states "The purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article", I have reinstated Zeta-Jones' nationality in the infobox. Please discuss here before changing it back. Daicaregos ( talk) 14:38, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Use British as her nationality. The last time I checked, Wales wasn't a sovereign state, but rather a part of the United Kingdom. GoodDay ( talk) 13:08, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Given the stress this issue is causing, I've gone ahead and removed the infobox altogether. -- Krimuk|90 ( talk) 02:56, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Just to inform you guys, I've opened a peer-review of the article here. Please feel free to point out improvements before I take this to the FAC. Cheers! -- Krimuk|90 ( talk) 02:23, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Infoboxes seem to pander to the lowest concentration span. Their premise seems to be that readers can't absorb the key facts from extended text, or that they want isolated factoids hammered into a prefabricated shape. They judder against the lead as a summary of the main text, but are prone to deceive (not by purpose, but in effect). Their inclusion would be derided in any culture that wasn't saturated with 30-second television ads and news broadcasts featuring 5- to 10-second grabs from politicians, PR consultants and disaster witnesses. Infoboxes are at loggerheads with WP's goal of providing reliable, deep information about the world; they intrude between readers and their all-important engagement with the opening of the main text.
Infoboxes should be used only occasionally, with great care. They should not be a formulaic part of articles. Cassianto Talk 05:56, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Remove infobox -agree with Cassianto and Ssilvers. As I stated previously, this definitely looks better without an infobox and looks more professional. The infobox contained nothing of value.♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:46, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Remove infobox for the reasons I have cited several times before elsewhere - they add nothing to an article and contain information that is usually covered in the lead anyway. Jack1956 ( talk) 07:44, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Remove IB. There is little of benefit in its inclusion in this instance. The key factoids are all present in the lead, where all readers expect to find them, and at least one is always problematic to me: the residence. This is something that can change without reference being found in the public domain and is therefore often out of date (making it a BLP issue). - SchroCat ( talk) 08:08, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Remove Infobox - IMHO, infoboxes in bios are best when it involves a political office. GoodDay ( talk) 23:18, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Comment: Why do you (all) discuss? There was an infobox in place from 14 August 2006 which has already been removed. I liked it, but that doesn't matter. Our readers should matter, not our personal opinions and preferences. Compare Marilyn Monroe and Max Reger. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 06:14, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
| |||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
![]() Zeta-Jones at the 2012
Tribeca Film Festival.
| |||||||||||||||||
|
Collapsed info box as per Frank Sinatra there has been a long standing infobox on this article, I see little reason to remove. Why not a compromise over this issue. Having a collapsed infobox, they give a valuable summary for those who do not wish to read the full article. I have generated an example of what could be done. It looks a lot more professional imo. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 14:15, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Remove infobox Per all of the above. It looks much more attractive without one. The lead summarises all of the main text, so we don't need an infobox. JAG UAR 19:16, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
-- Moxy ( talk) 14:59, 23 May 2016 (UTC)An infobox is a table of attribute-value pairs displayed on the top-right corner of a Wikipedia article. The majority of Wikipedia articles describe real-world named entities (in contrast to general concepts). Their infoboxes summarize important facts of corresponding entities. In addition to improving the quality and readability of articles within Wikipedia, information from Wikipedia infoboxes has also been used in several high-profile applications outside of Wikipedia, including the social database Freebase and Google’s Knowledge Graph1 which directly displays infobox information in Google search results. A tool that can automatically generate infoboxes for articles is thus appealing because such a bootstrapping tool will motivate and facilitate contributors in improving article quality."
A suggestion: For those not wanting to do the math to find the actress' age, we can use the age as of date template in the caption of her main display picture. Does that work? Krimuk|90 ( talk) 07:53, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
incivility. That's enough |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
[7] -- What a filthy, disgusting specimen you are Curly Turkey. I hope you're proud of yourself. This kind of filthy insinuation is beyond comprehension. I'm out. Cassianto Talk 00:11, 26 May 2016 (UTC) |
"Without an Infobox, it looks "unprofessional" ". Is that one of the jokes ? ;-) I'd argue exactly the opposite in arts biographies. A largely empty infobox cheapens articles and makes them look amateurish.. A neat photograph in the corner looks more professional IMO, but there you go. It should be the choice of the person who writes article to FA standard to decide whether to include one or not.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:13, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Capping pointless thread - it's not needed, is becoming an insult magnet and is a distraction to the main conversation which an uninvolved, neutral admin can close without anyone's flawed vote counting |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I've closed the helpme because this is a discussion, not a "how to edit Wiki" question. Primefac ( talk) 04:09, 25 May 2016 (UTC) I suggest someone restore it, as consensus is clearly to keep it in. In any case, it should take an overwhelming consensus to remove it from its decade of stability.-- Light show ( talk) 22:45, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
|
If this discussion is closed as "no consensus", please be very clear as to what version "no consensus" defaults to – the version with an infobox that has been around since 2006 until recently, or the version without an infobox that has just been introduced at the start of this discussion. Some editors have taken the novel stance that something boldy added over 10 years ago is not the "default" version because there was not a consensus discussion at that time. Please note that over the 10 years when this article had an infobox, there's been a successful GA nomination and peer review, where the infobox was not brought up at all. ~ Rob Talk 04:51, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Please ignore the arguments relating to Wikidata. Aside from the fact there is no consensus on wiki to have to provide data to it, the ability exists to edit WD directly. In the case of CZ-J (and remembering the main Arbcom infobox case instructed all to focus IB discussions on the specific article in question, not the question of IBs in general), the Wikidata entry for CZ-J already contains the required information that the IB contained (and the Google knowledge box that keeps readers from our site also contains that same set of factoids). To argue the IB is needed for WD is a straw man that can safely be put to one side without consideration. - SchroCat ( talk) 12:25, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
"punting 2 and 2 together is not your strong pointt is it?"Is there any chance you could try and be less uncivil for a change? Aside from yet another snide comment (which I begin to see is part and parcel of your discussion 'style'), perhaps you could try not to badly summarise my argument yet again to the point that you have again left an utterly misrepresentative view of my opinion. You've done this so often—and I've asked you not to so often—that my good faith on this point has evaporated entirely: you are deliberately trying to mislead others by lying about what I am saying. I am asking you, for what I hope is the final time, to not do it again. Concentrate on your own arguments, not on misleading others about mine. – SchroCat ( talk) 15:55, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
I listed this at ANRFC. With 8 supporting the infobox and 7 against by my rough count and no significant policy/guideline based arguments (at the end of the day, this is a matter of editorial taste), it's clear there was never consensus to remove this infobox. ~ Rob Talk 03:31, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
I've reverted the user's unilateral change of several well-sourced information in favour of poorly written fluff. This article is in the midst of an FAC review and such changes are demeaning to me, the nominator, as I've spent months trying to get the article to FA-standard. Of course the article can be improved, and that's what the FAC process is for, so comment there if you have issues with it. Removing information on how much Zeta-Jones' sex-appeal has been spoken about by commentators is horribly unfair. Discuss before you go ahead and do this. Krimuk|90 ( talk) 02:23, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
@Krimuk. Of the dozen or so edits I made I have no problem with discussing any pros or cons of whether they were an improvement. This is WP, where anyone can edit, recall? The videos were allowable fair use and they helped the commentary where used. If a cite got deleted by accident, fix it. If you don't like an edit or quote, explain. You do not own the article. At this point, none of your comments are rational and seem meant to start or continue an edit war, not to improve the article. Prove me wrong. Pick one of my edits and allow me and others to review and comment. Unless you say otherwise, I'll assume that all of the problems I found and corrected were added by you. P.S. SchroCat & Team is subject to my longstanding IBAN. Read any of his comments above to understand why. -- Light show ( talk) 03:25, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Use of the phrase is a label as is pretty or beautiful or whatever else. Source it for starters; this is a BLP. Second, as one label of many that could be applied, and if sourced, it could potentially be included in the body of article as one of many labels. Nothing I'm reading in the article and which is now sourced indicates Zeta- Jones got the roles she did in the US because she was sexy. While her looks matter, to describe an actor's work with a specific label like this does them a disservice. She's good at her craft and not because she's sexy. Sexy does't get you the kinds of jobs she has. If this were the case we could hire any so called sexy woman on the street and expect her to get top-rated movie roles which of course doesn't happen. ( Littleolive oil ( talk) 16:36, 3 June 2016 (UTC))
Cassianto and SchroCat, after Light show, I believe another one of the pro-infobox crowd decided to ruin the FAC. And ironically, it's one of the same reasons about which Light show was creating a ruckus. This is getting ridiculous! Not sure how much longer I can stand these people deliberately trying to ruin it's FA chances. -- Krimuk|90 ( talk) 03:09, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Assumptive reasoning can lead down a road of, "what the heck are you talking about". Take a break you're seeing shadows.( Littleolive oil ( talk) 05:03, 4 June 2016 (UTC))
Ok. Let's lay out what happened here. I disagreed with the wording in the lead and reverted once. I made a cmt here, correct procedure after a revert, and I did not revert again. I did not attack your position, or you, or anyone else. I did not know this article was under review. You are making gross assumptions about me and why I am editing which are personal attacks. Your suggestion that I go hike is an indication of ownership on your part. I suppose had I wanted to interfere with an FA review I would keep reverting. I would attack editors here rather than make a pretty simple cmt, again correct procedure after my revert, after which I intended to walk away having made my point and assuming consensus would decide on the final outcome. Instead you attacked me, you made some incorrect assumptions, and you are the one exhibiting ownership. I care about labels, they are small, narrow descriptions which tell readers very little, and they should be used as such even sourced. Don't make assumptions; you're very wrong in this case and you have created the ruckus yourself out of the cmts you've made here. ( Littleolive oil ( talk) 05:32, 4 June 2016 (UTC))
I have no idea why Littleolive oil is being attacked, both here and on the FAC talk page, but I suggest the attacks be removed or struck through.
Looking at the leads of articles about male actors:
Why don't you two amazing people write her bio? I'm done. Krimuk|90 ( talk) 01:34, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
As I tried to fix an out-of-context detail, but was quickly reverted with a meaningless rationale, and the misleading details were again added back by another editor, likewise with no rationale, some discussion is warranted.
The intentionally misleading statement in the article about her role in Entrapment:
"Janet Maslin of The New York Times thought that the film provided Zeta-Jones a platform to 'show off her slithery skills'..."
But source states the correct context for the statement: Z-J is
"actually preparing to dodge a cat's cradle of laser beams during a burglary rehearsal so graceful it suggests the movements of tai chi."
Reviews, New York Times Theater (December 2001). Film Reviews 1999-2000. Taylor & Francis. p. 64. ISBN 978-0-415-93696-5.
"Truth in advertising department: ads that depict Ms. Zeta-Jones in spidery crouch fake a much lower neckline than she wears in that particular scene and give a sinister cast to what is actually a gymnastic workout. Gin is actually preparing to dodge a cat's cradle of laser beams during a burglary rehearsal so graceful it suggests the movements of tai chi. The film finds many opportunities for Ms. Zeta-Jones to show off her slithery skills in this department."
Without that true context for the description, the "slithery" phrase sounds ridiculous and adds nothing relevant. The reason I claim that the misleading details are intentional is simply because the lack of context for the description was discussed months ago, and again today, but the restorers still prefer to keep it in without any rationale. By doing so, however, their rationale may be implied. -- Light show ( talk) 20:05, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Tick tock, tick tock. Time is running out Light show. You continue to upload vios and leave trolling posts on pages. Your wiki career aint going to last much longer unless you stop both.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:07, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Catherine Zeta-Jones, blurb subject to change by experts and the polisher, -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 12:36, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
We can't use tabloid journalism on a BLP per WP:BLPSOURCES. -- John ( talk) 06:35, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
So fucking tired of this shit!!! If none of the sources are reliable, how the fuck did this even pass FA? I can't keep having to deal with editors who go about removing stuff only because they don't like it! It's fucking ridiculous!!! And then some of them threaten to have it delisted. Well, go fucking ahead. If they can't make constructive edits and picking non-issues is their only claim to fame, then good for them! I can't possibly spend my time defending an article that has passed an extensive FAC. This place is really awful! Blindly removing things is easy. Try writing an FA for a change! Krimuk|90 ( talk) 07:50, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
|
Please go ahead and delist it. I'm done. Krimuk|90 ( talk) 12:43, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
This one isn't a topic I usually edit or comment, but aren't there other sources that confirm the text disputed by John? I always favor searching a bit over the internet before we delete something. And regarding the TFA, I don't think 2 disputed references, which are already gone, should alter what is scheduled.-- Retrohead ( talk) 19:17, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
(crossposted from
Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article#Catherine Zeta-Jones by request)
Assuming
this and
this are the "dubious sources" in question I see no issue with either in this context. The Mirror may be lowbrow but has no history of fabricating interviews so is a reliable source for quotations given in interviews with it, while the Evening Standard back then was only a tabloid in the sense that every major newspaper in Britain with the exception of the Daily Telegraph is a tabloid; it didn't become the Russian propaganda sheet it is today until it was bought out in 2009. (The citation is erroneously given to "London Evening Standard", a title it didn't have until Lebedev renamed it in 2009, but that's a trivial matter.) The claim that earning an estimated £6 million per film
is "not supported by the source" is flat-out untrue—the first sentence of
the source is "Catherine Zeta-Jones has signed a nine-film deal worth £54 million", which works out at exactly £6 million per film. ‑
Iridescent
20:23, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Zeta Jones can now command £5m a filmrather than six, but that's likely to be owing to exchange rate wobbles. The exact sums per movie will be commercially confidential, I imagine, but remember this was the period of Chicagoand Ocean's Twelve so it sounds a plausible sum. According to this site, which is probably not an RS but I'd imagine will at least be in the ballpark, she got $8 million for Chicago and $10 million for The Legend of Zorro, and presumably similar sums for the other big blockbusters of this period. ‑ Iridescent 20:56, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
"There was all this fuss about who I was and wasn't dating. I was a pretty face and a big bust and nothing else. People in the business believed what they read about me. So I decided to move away and start again."
Geoffrey Macnab, the editor of Sight & Sound magazine believes that she went on to establish herself as an actress by defying "skepticism from people who doubted she would succeed"; he also considers she "is an accomplished actress who has great versatility. She has been prepared to mix comedy and musicals and switch from screen to stage".
Good grief... And a grown up response was looked for.... I'm out here. - Gavin ( talk) 19:23, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Partly prompted by the above, has anyone considered that featured articles on BLP celebrities are usually best done (maybe only done) when an authorised biography exists? As far as I can see, no book-length source exists for the subject of this article, apart from the unauthorised biography from 2003 where publication was "indefinitely postponed after her lawyers threatened legal action". I don't think it would be unreasonable to oppose any BLP FAC on principle where no book-length source exists. Putting together a BLP article from various profiles and articles veers dangerously close to original synthesis and aggregation to create a new type of work that has not existed before. It made me wonder whether the above-mentioned lawyers would consider this article an unauthorised biography? I am not saying people should be put off by that, but it would make me think twice. The other thing about the work involved in making the final push to featured status for a BLP, and where where no authorised biography exists, is that the article will need constant updating (like any BLP) and in addition will need to be rewritten if any biography is published. It seems like it would be more efficient to take such articles as far as they can go, and then just be patient and wait for biographies to be published (or obituaries if no biography is ever written in the lifetime of the subject of the article). Carcharoth ( talk) 11:20, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
There may be something in Carcharoth's idea, but I doubt this is the place for that discussion. I have wondered for some time if a BLP article really can be a FA, but more for the reason that it requires constant updating, and if the primary editors disappear or move onto other areas, there is no guarantee that the updates are of the required standard, or even that they will be done at all. If Ms Zeta-Jones, or any similar actor, works for another ten years, what are the chances of ten years of high quality updates? In sport, the situation can be even worse. But I like the idea of requiring a biography for BLP as it ties into some similar worries I've had at other articles about selection of reviews and media commentary. But that is a conversation for elsewhere. (And again, it would help if these conversations could take place without back-and-forth insults, and without umbrage being taken) Sarastro1 ( talk) 19:43, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Sarastro1, I agree with you. There's only one way to ensure that someone who has written an FA stays around to provide it with high-quality updates. And that's by treating them with some bloody respect. With the way John and Martin treat the ones who actually do the constructive editing out here. you will not have many of us left around. And whose loss will that be? Krimuk|90 ( talk) 20:15, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
There's some discussion about this over at WT:TFA#Catherine Zeta-Jones. - Dank ( push to talk) 21:08, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
When I added tags to this article, I justified them in talk. User:Krimuk90, do you intend to justify your addition likewise? -- John ( talk) 12:11, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
I noticed this source, which says this:
It even names Cwmgelli Close. And it seems she's not alone in being misplaced: Joanna Page and Swansea Jack likewise? I guess Jones' lawyers haven't yet caught up with the Treboeth Local History Society, but it looks quite convincing to me. [9] Martinevans123 ( talk) 13:02, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Catherine Zeta-Jones. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:37, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
As if her stunning beauty, sophisticated personality, and intelligence weren't enough, Catherine knows how to choose clothes that make her even more sensational. According to critics, she wore the most elegant and sexiest dress at the 1999 Oscars, and she is always included in entertainment and fashion magazines.
Wow. I think our noses are a bit brown. Seriously, can we chop down the fangirly POV? Mike H 06:33, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)
As she is a native Welsh speaker... is it know if she has participated in any Welsh language projects? Drachenfyre
Why in the world do we care about the "dream home" in Wales? Too damn much celebrity filler crapola in these pages about contemporary stars.
What is the definition of "exotic beauty" please? And from just whose (ethnocentric) point of view is that exoticism determined? She does have, to this American anyway, what one might term a vaguely Mediterranean look -- is that what "exotic" is supposed to mean? And do non-Anglos find her "exotic"? My Chinese girlfriend found me "exotic" simply because my head-hair and beard-hair were different colors. Really, just because a page is written in English doesn't mean it should be so blindly ethnocentric.
--From observation, I would say that "exotic beauty" is a catchall phrase for non-"WASP"/blonde-blue looks. Yes, she does have a Mediterraenean look, not uncommon in Wales. (I'll add some historical links later.)I'm "non-Anglo," and she is beautiful, but not exotic, she actually resembles my mother(Irish/Welsh and a few other things) when she was in that age range. Exotic to me is a blue eyed blonde. I agree with you about the Anglocentric bias of that "exotic" statement. JBDay 21:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Can we have an authoritative reference for the "speaks Welsh fluently" comment? For every reference on the web claiming this, there is another (often in Welsh) contradicting it. Telsa 20:28, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
Whilst I'm at it, why does Catherine Zeta Jones (no hyphen) redirect to Catherine Zeta-Jones? Surely this is the wrong way around? Telsa 20:28, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
"She was born to Patrick Jones, a Welsh candy factory worker and Dia, a woman who was of Irish Catholic extraction and has two brothers."
Does this mean that Dia was of Irish Catholic extraction and had two brothers; or that Dia was of Irish Catholic extraction and Catherine has two brothers?
Btw, we don't have "candy factories" in Wales. Sweets, perhaps?
Telsa 13:49, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Some two years ago it was alleged in a big british newspaper that CZJ is in fact a full 10 years older than she admits (i.e. born 1959). What came out of that? Indeed she seems well along elderly Mr. Douglas which suggests she is not a young stupid chick but more mature.
If this were true, wouldn't she have said something to Jay Leno, on whose show she has appeared a number of times, about all those jokes about the age difference? "When they go to the movies together, he gets the 65-and-over discount, she gets the 12-and-under." Also "Who's your granddaddy?" She'd have had to say, "Come on, Jay, we're only 15 years apart, not 25! It's not as bad as you think." And, of course, if she were 46 instead of 36, that would only make her figure even more incredible. -- Pacholeknbnj
I was in school with her. I was born in 1969. Aredbeardeddwarf 21:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Rather than reverting "is"/"isn't" twice a day, perhaps the debaters of the vexed question of her Irishness could outline their reasons and sources for believing that she is or isn't Welsh, Welsh/Irish, or whatever here and come to some degree of consensus about it?
There seems on Wikipedia generally to be a split between people who believe that nationality/ethnicity is largely based on where you and your parents were born and brought up, and between people who believe that it is based upon where you, your parents, your grandparents, your great-grandparents and so on back until about 1700 were born and brought up, and that one great-grandparent from one place means that you also share that nationality/ethnicity/connection/what-have-you. I wonder if this split is at the root of what is happening here?
All that the article says (completely unsourced) is that her mother was of Irish Catholic "extraction". Perhaps it's just my reading of it, but this is a bit nebulous. In the UK, "of.. extraction" tends to imply a rather more distant connection than "came from there his/herself". Is this the case in other English-speaking countries? Is this one unsourced claim the basis of this entire ponderous series of reverts lumbering on just under the 3RR rule? Perhaps if we could find out what "of Irish Catholic extraction" means in the first place, we could get a bit closer? C'mon, people. Sources please? (Mind, I am still waiting for the source for the claim of her fluent Welsh. In the meantime, I note that she has now acquired French and Spanish too...)
-- Telsa 15:56, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, if there is not much of a debate, why have there been another four "is/isn't" reversions since I asked that? Can we keep WP:RS and WP:V in mind and have even one reliable source backing either claim?
And if her mother is Irish, why aren't we just saying that instead of this "of Irish extraction" phrasing?
-- Telsa 09:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
After Telsa told me about this on IRC, I attempted to make a compromise. Instead of "Welsh actress", I wrote "actress from Wales", which does state her nationality, but unambigously. I also added the origin in the introduction, but clearly as origin, again unambigouosly. I hope this will help. In a number of biographic articles on Wikipedia, ethnic background is in the introduction, so I don't see why that wouldn't be the case here.
By the way, Telsa tried to ask what "of Irish extraction" actually means, not to ask whether it is disputed. Nikola 09:28, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Does she have US citizenship. if yes she is a Welsh-American, if not she isn't, SqueakBox 15:44, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
-Pacholeknbnj is on crack. you dont become a u.s. citizen automatically. you have to apply. you even have to take a test. dont try to act like an expert when youre not.
I tried to delete 'Artemis Fowl' from her 2007 filmography - there is no real evidence this film even exists - and I've buggered it up a bit. Could someone please fix it? Thanks, and sorry. TheDingbat 00:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC) Catherin-Zeta-Jones might play Lily Munster in the upcoming comedy film The Munsters
The article gives it as both Swansea and Treboeth, so which is it to be? - Dudesleeper 16:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Can someone tell me why my paragraph about her name being used in the American version of "The Office" was deleted?
Regarding the recent edit by someone at 75.69.179.68:
Changed from:
Zeta-Jones attended the moderately-priced brothel, Dumbarton House in Swansea where she was apparently an average prostitute.
To:
Zeta-Jones attended Dumbarton House School in Swansea.
Does anyone have thoughts on that? A bit of a sharp turn I would suggest.
As for 75.69.179.68, the user has only one contribution. The network data is below.
OrgName: Comcast Cable Communications Holdings, Inc OrgID: CCCH-3 Address: 1800 Bishops Gate Blvd City: Mt Laurel StateProv: NJ PostalCode: 08054 Country: US
>> Checked : This is SCHOOL and the brothel stuff was lame —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.15.225.50 ( talk) 04:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
NetRange: 75.64.0.0 - 75.75.191.255 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.15.225.50 ( talk) 03:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
The statement that her father's mother is of "north Greek" origin is traceable to a CNN transcript of the Larry King Live show and been widely quoted. However listening to an audio of the interview she actually says "of not Greek origin". Listen to it at http://infoworld.koreanblog.com/entry/Everyones-Sweetheart-Catherine-Zeta-Jones-Oct-2001 and decide for yourself. 156.63.68.215 17:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)iwerdhon
I did not feel as if I should change the article but merely call attention to my refutation on the discussion page. If you want to leave misinformation in the article I guess you can. After all this is wikipedia. By the way, the Greeks already have enough famous people - Idon't see why you feel the need to claim people aren't Greek. Listen to the above link about the Larry King interview. 66.213.29.2 13:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)iwerdhon
Here is the transcript from the site I suggested: ZETA-JONES: Yes. Zeta is my grandmother’s name, who is of not Greek origin. But Zeta is a Greek name. And everyone thinks that I was, just put Zeta in to spice up Catherine Jones. And that’s completely untrue. And while on the subject of syntax, why would you say "but" (implying a contradiction?) Wouldn't you say "And" or "Because". The CNN transcript is a "rush transcript which may contain errors" according to CNN. I have contacted them twice with no response. Sorry, you are just plain incorrect and quoting a mis-heard transcript doesn't justify it. 66.213.29.2 19:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)iwerdhon (a Welshman)
I removed the "Hellenic friend". Why is the CNN transcript the only place this is shown and quoted from? A little research would show that "Zeta" is her grandmother's first name, not a surname. Furthermore if you investigate you will discover that it was the name of a ship on which her great-grandfather sailed. 156.63.68.237 18:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)Iwerdhon
In a personal correspondence with a woman related to Catherine Zeta Jones she informed me that CZJ's maternal grandfather was Welsh (William Fair) and that the maternal grandmother was Irish (Catherine O'Callaghan) 156.63.68.216 17:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)Iwerdhon
Hey Dudesleeper, did you listen to the interview? It's at http://infoworld.koreanblog.com/entry/Everyones-Sweetheart-Catherine-Zeta-Jones-Oct-2001 The CNN transcript is just plain incorrect. Do you have any other source to back up the CNN transcript? 66.213.29.2 ( talk) 14:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)iwerdhon
i alway enjoy the you look latina being latina is not a race a latina can have any phenotype on earth lol oh god the ignorance-- Wikiscribe ( talk) 05:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Obviously there's a long-term edit war here over her ethnicity. I take no sides; I ask only that you not link to disambiguation pages like Welsh. Wales, Welsh people, Welsh language, etc. are articles, but Welsh is not. Thanks. Ntsimp ( talk) 23:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Why is it that her name hyphenated on this website (and others)? Her first name is Catherine (a grandmother's first name) Her middle name is Zeta (the other grandmother's first name) Her last name (maiden) is Jones Hyphens usually appear when constructing a last name that is a composite of two or more (usually two). That is NOT what is happening with her name. More than anything else... She doesn't use a hyphen when spelling her name. (I can't believe I've wasted a few precious minutes of my life on this.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.167.30 ( talk) 14:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
The introduction currently states: "She won an Academy Award, BAFTA Award and a Screen Actors Guild Award and was nominated for a Golden Globe Award for portraying Velma Kelly in the 2002 film adaptation of Chicago, making her the first and only British actress to win in that category."
This is so nonsensical that I don't even know what it's TRYING to say. It sounds like it's referring to the Golden Globes, but of course she didn't win that, and if she had she stll wouldn't have been the first British actress to do so. Likewise with the Oscar, BAFTA and SAG Awards - British actresses have won all of these awards in the same category. Does anyone want to try and clarify, or should this last clause just be taken out?
Brianwilsonisgod (
talk)
12:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
On a side note, what might be considered interesting is that she was the first actress to win an Oscar for a musical for 30 years (I assume we don't count Coal Miner's Daughter as a musical), and the first to do so in the supporting category for over 40 years. Just a thought. Brianwilsonisgod ( talk) 13:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
OK - no responses to this, so I have simply removed the clause. If anyone knows what it was trying to say, and wants to put it back in so it makes sense, please feel free. Brianwilsonisgod ( talk) 14:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
The current picture of Catherine Zeta-Jones is not the most flattering and does not do justice to her. I don't know how, but could somebody please change it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.124.222 ( talk) 23:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
look at a beautiful actor/personality in wiki and chances are there is some comment in the discussion as to whether the picture does her justice or if she is jewish ... it's uncanny ... a picture is a picture, if it's not professionally altered or in the right light, it's still an image of her, let it be, or replace it ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.56.86.35 ( talk) 19:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Zeta Jones just received an award of CBE (commander british empire) from prince of Wales on feb 24 , so adding an "awards" paragraph to include this award, along with numerous others is warranted. /s emp hiley selassie, imp of ethiopia sr 69.121.221.97 ( talk) 18:16, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
I´m deleting this part because I couldn´t confirm it on the google and it´s out of place. "She confirmed her bisexuality in an interview with Hello magazine in 2003, and also revealed details of her previously unkown lesbian affair with Margaret Russell, a member of the production crew from Chicago.[12]" I think it needs a more reliable source. 85.240.23.177 ( talk) 18:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
The article name uses Zeta-Jones yet the article content uses Zeta Jones. Which is correct? - Mickraus ( talk) 21:43, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
After her parents won £10 at Bingo in the 1980s only £10? -- 85.181.238.41 ( talk) 13:03, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
< -- comment removed due to being libellous and a BLP vio -->
Her birth was registered in the 4th quarter of 1969, so the date as given in the article seems correct. The England and Wales Birth Marriage and Death records include:
Name: Catherine Zeta Jones Mother's Maiden Surname: Fair Date of Registration: Oct Nov Dec 1969 Registration district: Swansea Registration county: Wales Volume Number: 8b Page Number: 4595 87.243.194.122 ( talk) 00:43, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
I removed: "The name Zeta is reportedly taken from the Henry Bath ship “Zeta” that was captained by her great-grandfather." This is not a reliable source ("reportedly" by whom? The ship company also says "reportedly" and can't know why people get names). And it is unlikeky that the captain was here great-grandfather. The ship has been build in 1865 and sold and renamed in 1872. So there would have to be at least one generation more. -- 88.78.120.44 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:38, 20 February 2012 (UTC).
Why? There's loads of dark Welsh people; our ancestors come from Spain; after all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.71.136 ( talk) 19:52, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
'Zeta' is not one of her names. It is the first half of her hyphenated last name. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
31.55.91.144 (
talk)
16:58, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
HollyScoop website has her on a list of stars who were former strippers, this should be mentioned IMO even if it is untrue (to dispel it). Historian932 ( talk) 13:29, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
DUDE I SUGGEST YOU CONSULT YOUR BRITISH PASSPORT. LOOK UP THE PART THAT SAYS "Nationality" and it will say "British Citizen". Nationality and citizenship are synonymous as proven by the UK passport authorities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.51.72.251 ( talk) 02:02, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Jones's nationality is British citizen. "Welsh", "Scottish" "English" are NOT nationalities! "Irish" however is, Irish refers to a citizen of a sovereign state, with Ireland having gained its independence from the United Kingdom in December 1922. England, Wales and Scotland are part of the United Kingdom and are not separate, sovereign states. SO please stop changing back her nationality to "Welsh". This is incorrect! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.51.73.135 ( talk) 15:11, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
To User "GoodDay" and "IP", I support you using British as her nationality and citizenship, which are, for the large part, recognised internationally and used as synonyms. Hey! Don't shoot the messenger here! I'm just stating the way things are, without explicitly endorsing same or claiming that this is the way things should be. I'm just stating that things are like this and not that this is the right way to do things! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bibi999 ( talk • contribs) 22:42, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
The article states CZJ's father was of Welsh and Macedonian descent. However, most other articles I can find suggest her grandmother was Greek? Is the "Macedonian" Slavic ethnicity or northern Greek (and I know about the ethnic mixes in the region). Are there any sources the say her father considered himself of Slavic-Macedonian descent? (13:43, 22 January 2016 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.146.74.193 ( talk)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Dr. Blofeld ( talk · contribs) 17:23, 9 April 2016 (UTC) Will gladly review this either later or tomorrow morning.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:23, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
@ Krimuk90: Seriously, this is quite a brilliant article you've produced here in such a short space of time. In fact, I'm not sure I could do much better! This definitely has FA potential and I think with some further research and work and a solid peer review this could become a candidate. Will pass once addressed, but well done!♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:35, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
GA review – see
WP:WIAGA for criteria
References
Could someone please take a look at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category_talk:Catherine_Zeta-Jones#Image_additions 78.148.67.220 ( talk) 18:28, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Great work on the GA. Just one point, Catherine Zeta-Jones is defined by her Welshness. Prior to the excellent clean up from 1 April, her nationality was cited by three reliable sources (the BBC; The Daily Telegraph; and The Independent) at the end of the first sentence in the Lead. Reliable sources commonly define Zeta-Jones as Welsh, including the the BBC, ITV, The Daily Telegraph, Huffington Post, the Grauniad, Cosmopolitan, and even the Welsh Government. Common usage shows Zeta-Jones is described as Welsh. As MOS:INFOBOX states "The purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article", I have reinstated Zeta-Jones' nationality in the infobox. Please discuss here before changing it back. Daicaregos ( talk) 14:38, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Use British as her nationality. The last time I checked, Wales wasn't a sovereign state, but rather a part of the United Kingdom. GoodDay ( talk) 13:08, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Given the stress this issue is causing, I've gone ahead and removed the infobox altogether. -- Krimuk|90 ( talk) 02:56, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Just to inform you guys, I've opened a peer-review of the article here. Please feel free to point out improvements before I take this to the FAC. Cheers! -- Krimuk|90 ( talk) 02:23, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Infoboxes seem to pander to the lowest concentration span. Their premise seems to be that readers can't absorb the key facts from extended text, or that they want isolated factoids hammered into a prefabricated shape. They judder against the lead as a summary of the main text, but are prone to deceive (not by purpose, but in effect). Their inclusion would be derided in any culture that wasn't saturated with 30-second television ads and news broadcasts featuring 5- to 10-second grabs from politicians, PR consultants and disaster witnesses. Infoboxes are at loggerheads with WP's goal of providing reliable, deep information about the world; they intrude between readers and their all-important engagement with the opening of the main text.
Infoboxes should be used only occasionally, with great care. They should not be a formulaic part of articles. Cassianto Talk 05:56, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Remove infobox -agree with Cassianto and Ssilvers. As I stated previously, this definitely looks better without an infobox and looks more professional. The infobox contained nothing of value.♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:46, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Remove infobox for the reasons I have cited several times before elsewhere - they add nothing to an article and contain information that is usually covered in the lead anyway. Jack1956 ( talk) 07:44, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Remove IB. There is little of benefit in its inclusion in this instance. The key factoids are all present in the lead, where all readers expect to find them, and at least one is always problematic to me: the residence. This is something that can change without reference being found in the public domain and is therefore often out of date (making it a BLP issue). - SchroCat ( talk) 08:08, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Remove Infobox - IMHO, infoboxes in bios are best when it involves a political office. GoodDay ( talk) 23:18, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Comment: Why do you (all) discuss? There was an infobox in place from 14 August 2006 which has already been removed. I liked it, but that doesn't matter. Our readers should matter, not our personal opinions and preferences. Compare Marilyn Monroe and Max Reger. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 06:14, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
| |||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
![]() Zeta-Jones at the 2012
Tribeca Film Festival.
| |||||||||||||||||
|
Collapsed info box as per Frank Sinatra there has been a long standing infobox on this article, I see little reason to remove. Why not a compromise over this issue. Having a collapsed infobox, they give a valuable summary for those who do not wish to read the full article. I have generated an example of what could be done. It looks a lot more professional imo. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 14:15, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Remove infobox Per all of the above. It looks much more attractive without one. The lead summarises all of the main text, so we don't need an infobox. JAG UAR 19:16, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
-- Moxy ( talk) 14:59, 23 May 2016 (UTC)An infobox is a table of attribute-value pairs displayed on the top-right corner of a Wikipedia article. The majority of Wikipedia articles describe real-world named entities (in contrast to general concepts). Their infoboxes summarize important facts of corresponding entities. In addition to improving the quality and readability of articles within Wikipedia, information from Wikipedia infoboxes has also been used in several high-profile applications outside of Wikipedia, including the social database Freebase and Google’s Knowledge Graph1 which directly displays infobox information in Google search results. A tool that can automatically generate infoboxes for articles is thus appealing because such a bootstrapping tool will motivate and facilitate contributors in improving article quality."
A suggestion: For those not wanting to do the math to find the actress' age, we can use the age as of date template in the caption of her main display picture. Does that work? Krimuk|90 ( talk) 07:53, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
incivility. That's enough |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
[7] -- What a filthy, disgusting specimen you are Curly Turkey. I hope you're proud of yourself. This kind of filthy insinuation is beyond comprehension. I'm out. Cassianto Talk 00:11, 26 May 2016 (UTC) |
"Without an Infobox, it looks "unprofessional" ". Is that one of the jokes ? ;-) I'd argue exactly the opposite in arts biographies. A largely empty infobox cheapens articles and makes them look amateurish.. A neat photograph in the corner looks more professional IMO, but there you go. It should be the choice of the person who writes article to FA standard to decide whether to include one or not.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:13, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Capping pointless thread - it's not needed, is becoming an insult magnet and is a distraction to the main conversation which an uninvolved, neutral admin can close without anyone's flawed vote counting |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I've closed the helpme because this is a discussion, not a "how to edit Wiki" question. Primefac ( talk) 04:09, 25 May 2016 (UTC) I suggest someone restore it, as consensus is clearly to keep it in. In any case, it should take an overwhelming consensus to remove it from its decade of stability.-- Light show ( talk) 22:45, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
|
If this discussion is closed as "no consensus", please be very clear as to what version "no consensus" defaults to – the version with an infobox that has been around since 2006 until recently, or the version without an infobox that has just been introduced at the start of this discussion. Some editors have taken the novel stance that something boldy added over 10 years ago is not the "default" version because there was not a consensus discussion at that time. Please note that over the 10 years when this article had an infobox, there's been a successful GA nomination and peer review, where the infobox was not brought up at all. ~ Rob Talk 04:51, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Please ignore the arguments relating to Wikidata. Aside from the fact there is no consensus on wiki to have to provide data to it, the ability exists to edit WD directly. In the case of CZ-J (and remembering the main Arbcom infobox case instructed all to focus IB discussions on the specific article in question, not the question of IBs in general), the Wikidata entry for CZ-J already contains the required information that the IB contained (and the Google knowledge box that keeps readers from our site also contains that same set of factoids). To argue the IB is needed for WD is a straw man that can safely be put to one side without consideration. - SchroCat ( talk) 12:25, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
"punting 2 and 2 together is not your strong pointt is it?"Is there any chance you could try and be less uncivil for a change? Aside from yet another snide comment (which I begin to see is part and parcel of your discussion 'style'), perhaps you could try not to badly summarise my argument yet again to the point that you have again left an utterly misrepresentative view of my opinion. You've done this so often—and I've asked you not to so often—that my good faith on this point has evaporated entirely: you are deliberately trying to mislead others by lying about what I am saying. I am asking you, for what I hope is the final time, to not do it again. Concentrate on your own arguments, not on misleading others about mine. – SchroCat ( talk) 15:55, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
I listed this at ANRFC. With 8 supporting the infobox and 7 against by my rough count and no significant policy/guideline based arguments (at the end of the day, this is a matter of editorial taste), it's clear there was never consensus to remove this infobox. ~ Rob Talk 03:31, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
I've reverted the user's unilateral change of several well-sourced information in favour of poorly written fluff. This article is in the midst of an FAC review and such changes are demeaning to me, the nominator, as I've spent months trying to get the article to FA-standard. Of course the article can be improved, and that's what the FAC process is for, so comment there if you have issues with it. Removing information on how much Zeta-Jones' sex-appeal has been spoken about by commentators is horribly unfair. Discuss before you go ahead and do this. Krimuk|90 ( talk) 02:23, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
@Krimuk. Of the dozen or so edits I made I have no problem with discussing any pros or cons of whether they were an improvement. This is WP, where anyone can edit, recall? The videos were allowable fair use and they helped the commentary where used. If a cite got deleted by accident, fix it. If you don't like an edit or quote, explain. You do not own the article. At this point, none of your comments are rational and seem meant to start or continue an edit war, not to improve the article. Prove me wrong. Pick one of my edits and allow me and others to review and comment. Unless you say otherwise, I'll assume that all of the problems I found and corrected were added by you. P.S. SchroCat & Team is subject to my longstanding IBAN. Read any of his comments above to understand why. -- Light show ( talk) 03:25, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Use of the phrase is a label as is pretty or beautiful or whatever else. Source it for starters; this is a BLP. Second, as one label of many that could be applied, and if sourced, it could potentially be included in the body of article as one of many labels. Nothing I'm reading in the article and which is now sourced indicates Zeta- Jones got the roles she did in the US because she was sexy. While her looks matter, to describe an actor's work with a specific label like this does them a disservice. She's good at her craft and not because she's sexy. Sexy does't get you the kinds of jobs she has. If this were the case we could hire any so called sexy woman on the street and expect her to get top-rated movie roles which of course doesn't happen. ( Littleolive oil ( talk) 16:36, 3 June 2016 (UTC))
Cassianto and SchroCat, after Light show, I believe another one of the pro-infobox crowd decided to ruin the FAC. And ironically, it's one of the same reasons about which Light show was creating a ruckus. This is getting ridiculous! Not sure how much longer I can stand these people deliberately trying to ruin it's FA chances. -- Krimuk|90 ( talk) 03:09, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Assumptive reasoning can lead down a road of, "what the heck are you talking about". Take a break you're seeing shadows.( Littleolive oil ( talk) 05:03, 4 June 2016 (UTC))
Ok. Let's lay out what happened here. I disagreed with the wording in the lead and reverted once. I made a cmt here, correct procedure after a revert, and I did not revert again. I did not attack your position, or you, or anyone else. I did not know this article was under review. You are making gross assumptions about me and why I am editing which are personal attacks. Your suggestion that I go hike is an indication of ownership on your part. I suppose had I wanted to interfere with an FA review I would keep reverting. I would attack editors here rather than make a pretty simple cmt, again correct procedure after my revert, after which I intended to walk away having made my point and assuming consensus would decide on the final outcome. Instead you attacked me, you made some incorrect assumptions, and you are the one exhibiting ownership. I care about labels, they are small, narrow descriptions which tell readers very little, and they should be used as such even sourced. Don't make assumptions; you're very wrong in this case and you have created the ruckus yourself out of the cmts you've made here. ( Littleolive oil ( talk) 05:32, 4 June 2016 (UTC))
I have no idea why Littleolive oil is being attacked, both here and on the FAC talk page, but I suggest the attacks be removed or struck through.
Looking at the leads of articles about male actors:
Why don't you two amazing people write her bio? I'm done. Krimuk|90 ( talk) 01:34, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
As I tried to fix an out-of-context detail, but was quickly reverted with a meaningless rationale, and the misleading details were again added back by another editor, likewise with no rationale, some discussion is warranted.
The intentionally misleading statement in the article about her role in Entrapment:
"Janet Maslin of The New York Times thought that the film provided Zeta-Jones a platform to 'show off her slithery skills'..."
But source states the correct context for the statement: Z-J is
"actually preparing to dodge a cat's cradle of laser beams during a burglary rehearsal so graceful it suggests the movements of tai chi."
Reviews, New York Times Theater (December 2001). Film Reviews 1999-2000. Taylor & Francis. p. 64. ISBN 978-0-415-93696-5.
"Truth in advertising department: ads that depict Ms. Zeta-Jones in spidery crouch fake a much lower neckline than she wears in that particular scene and give a sinister cast to what is actually a gymnastic workout. Gin is actually preparing to dodge a cat's cradle of laser beams during a burglary rehearsal so graceful it suggests the movements of tai chi. The film finds many opportunities for Ms. Zeta-Jones to show off her slithery skills in this department."
Without that true context for the description, the "slithery" phrase sounds ridiculous and adds nothing relevant. The reason I claim that the misleading details are intentional is simply because the lack of context for the description was discussed months ago, and again today, but the restorers still prefer to keep it in without any rationale. By doing so, however, their rationale may be implied. -- Light show ( talk) 20:05, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Tick tock, tick tock. Time is running out Light show. You continue to upload vios and leave trolling posts on pages. Your wiki career aint going to last much longer unless you stop both.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:07, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Catherine Zeta-Jones, blurb subject to change by experts and the polisher, -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 12:36, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
We can't use tabloid journalism on a BLP per WP:BLPSOURCES. -- John ( talk) 06:35, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
So fucking tired of this shit!!! If none of the sources are reliable, how the fuck did this even pass FA? I can't keep having to deal with editors who go about removing stuff only because they don't like it! It's fucking ridiculous!!! And then some of them threaten to have it delisted. Well, go fucking ahead. If they can't make constructive edits and picking non-issues is their only claim to fame, then good for them! I can't possibly spend my time defending an article that has passed an extensive FAC. This place is really awful! Blindly removing things is easy. Try writing an FA for a change! Krimuk|90 ( talk) 07:50, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
|
Please go ahead and delist it. I'm done. Krimuk|90 ( talk) 12:43, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
This one isn't a topic I usually edit or comment, but aren't there other sources that confirm the text disputed by John? I always favor searching a bit over the internet before we delete something. And regarding the TFA, I don't think 2 disputed references, which are already gone, should alter what is scheduled.-- Retrohead ( talk) 19:17, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
(crossposted from
Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article#Catherine Zeta-Jones by request)
Assuming
this and
this are the "dubious sources" in question I see no issue with either in this context. The Mirror may be lowbrow but has no history of fabricating interviews so is a reliable source for quotations given in interviews with it, while the Evening Standard back then was only a tabloid in the sense that every major newspaper in Britain with the exception of the Daily Telegraph is a tabloid; it didn't become the Russian propaganda sheet it is today until it was bought out in 2009. (The citation is erroneously given to "London Evening Standard", a title it didn't have until Lebedev renamed it in 2009, but that's a trivial matter.) The claim that earning an estimated £6 million per film
is "not supported by the source" is flat-out untrue—the first sentence of
the source is "Catherine Zeta-Jones has signed a nine-film deal worth £54 million", which works out at exactly £6 million per film. ‑
Iridescent
20:23, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Zeta Jones can now command £5m a filmrather than six, but that's likely to be owing to exchange rate wobbles. The exact sums per movie will be commercially confidential, I imagine, but remember this was the period of Chicagoand Ocean's Twelve so it sounds a plausible sum. According to this site, which is probably not an RS but I'd imagine will at least be in the ballpark, she got $8 million for Chicago and $10 million for The Legend of Zorro, and presumably similar sums for the other big blockbusters of this period. ‑ Iridescent 20:56, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
"There was all this fuss about who I was and wasn't dating. I was a pretty face and a big bust and nothing else. People in the business believed what they read about me. So I decided to move away and start again."
Geoffrey Macnab, the editor of Sight & Sound magazine believes that she went on to establish herself as an actress by defying "skepticism from people who doubted she would succeed"; he also considers she "is an accomplished actress who has great versatility. She has been prepared to mix comedy and musicals and switch from screen to stage".
Good grief... And a grown up response was looked for.... I'm out here. - Gavin ( talk) 19:23, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Partly prompted by the above, has anyone considered that featured articles on BLP celebrities are usually best done (maybe only done) when an authorised biography exists? As far as I can see, no book-length source exists for the subject of this article, apart from the unauthorised biography from 2003 where publication was "indefinitely postponed after her lawyers threatened legal action". I don't think it would be unreasonable to oppose any BLP FAC on principle where no book-length source exists. Putting together a BLP article from various profiles and articles veers dangerously close to original synthesis and aggregation to create a new type of work that has not existed before. It made me wonder whether the above-mentioned lawyers would consider this article an unauthorised biography? I am not saying people should be put off by that, but it would make me think twice. The other thing about the work involved in making the final push to featured status for a BLP, and where where no authorised biography exists, is that the article will need constant updating (like any BLP) and in addition will need to be rewritten if any biography is published. It seems like it would be more efficient to take such articles as far as they can go, and then just be patient and wait for biographies to be published (or obituaries if no biography is ever written in the lifetime of the subject of the article). Carcharoth ( talk) 11:20, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
There may be something in Carcharoth's idea, but I doubt this is the place for that discussion. I have wondered for some time if a BLP article really can be a FA, but more for the reason that it requires constant updating, and if the primary editors disappear or move onto other areas, there is no guarantee that the updates are of the required standard, or even that they will be done at all. If Ms Zeta-Jones, or any similar actor, works for another ten years, what are the chances of ten years of high quality updates? In sport, the situation can be even worse. But I like the idea of requiring a biography for BLP as it ties into some similar worries I've had at other articles about selection of reviews and media commentary. But that is a conversation for elsewhere. (And again, it would help if these conversations could take place without back-and-forth insults, and without umbrage being taken) Sarastro1 ( talk) 19:43, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Sarastro1, I agree with you. There's only one way to ensure that someone who has written an FA stays around to provide it with high-quality updates. And that's by treating them with some bloody respect. With the way John and Martin treat the ones who actually do the constructive editing out here. you will not have many of us left around. And whose loss will that be? Krimuk|90 ( talk) 20:15, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
There's some discussion about this over at WT:TFA#Catherine Zeta-Jones. - Dank ( push to talk) 21:08, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
When I added tags to this article, I justified them in talk. User:Krimuk90, do you intend to justify your addition likewise? -- John ( talk) 12:11, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
I noticed this source, which says this:
It even names Cwmgelli Close. And it seems she's not alone in being misplaced: Joanna Page and Swansea Jack likewise? I guess Jones' lawyers haven't yet caught up with the Treboeth Local History Society, but it looks quite convincing to me. [9] Martinevans123 ( talk) 13:02, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Catherine Zeta-Jones. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:37, 19 May 2017 (UTC)