Jump to content

Talk:Rachel Weisz: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit Reply
 
(18 intermediate revisions by 12 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Skip to talk}}
{{Skip to talk}}
{{Talk header|archive_age=30|archive_bot=Lowercase sigmabot III}}
{{Talk header}}
{{British English|date=September 2010}}
{{British English|date=September 2010}}
{{ArticleHistory
{{ArticleHistory
Line 17: Line 17:
|topic=film
|topic=film
|currentstatus=GA}}
|currentstatus=GA}}
⚫
{{WikiProject banner shell|blp=yes|class=GA|vital=yes|listas=Weisz, Rachel|1=
{{Vital article|class=GA|level=5|topic=People|subpage=Entertainers}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|blp=yes|1=
{{WikiProject Biography|filmbio-priority=High|filmbio-work-group=yes}}
⚫
{{WikiProject England|importance=mid}}
⚫
{{WikiProject Biography|living=yes|class=GA|filmbio-priority=High|filmbio-work-group=yes|listas=Weisz, Rachel}}
{{WikiProject England|class=GA|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject London|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject London|class=GA|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Women}}
⚫
{{WikiProject Women|class=GA}}
{{WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors|user=Grapple X|date=7 March 2011}}
{{WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors|user=Grapple X|date=7 March 2011}}
⚫
{{Wiki Loves Pride talk|2018}}
}}
}}
⚫
{{Wiki Loves Pride talk|2018}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|algo=old(30d)
|algo=old(30d)
Line 36: Line 35:
}}
}}


⚫
== Date of birth ==
{{Talk:Rachel Weisz/GA1}}

⚫
==date of birth==
Contrary to the Footnote the BFI does not really give 1970 as date of birth, her more detailed biography at the BFI (see [http://www.screenonline.org.uk/people/id/1174895/index.html]) actually states 1971 as the guardian does. I'm not sure regarding the comment of the registration (where does that information come from?). Has somebody actually checked the official registration (a WP author or some external source not being given currently)? If the answer to that question is yes it should be stated more clearly in the note. But if the answer is unknown or even no, that date should be changed to 1971, the figure that the guardian and the BFI (Larman's biography on screenonline) ''both'' state.--[[User:Kmhkmh|Kmhkmh]] ([[User talk:Kmhkmh|talk]]) 14:43, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
:P.S.: Since there was no answer regarding the unsourced birh registration claim I removed it from the article and changed the date 1971, which is the date that most reliable sources carry. The few "reliable" ones that carry 1970 may have simply copied it from the (false) date in her IMDB entry.--[[User:Kmhkmh|Kmhkmh]] ([[User talk:Kmhkmh|talk]]) 01:39, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
::She was born in 1970. That is a fact. Her birth was registered in 1970. That's what's on the British Birth Records, which are searchable at ancestry.com and on other sites. So, if you're legitimately pursuing factual correctness, then that's what's factually correct. Most mainstream publications who have commented on her birthdate (recently, that is) reflect this. Time Magazine interviewed her just this March, as they say, [http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2109136,00.html the day before her 42nd birthday]. [[User:All Hallow's Wraith|All Hallow's Wraith]] ([[User talk:All Hallow's Wraith|talk]]) 18:25, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
:::The Time Magazine is hardly an argument at all, since, as I stated in my edit, most reliable ''British'' sources (in particular including her biography at the BFI) state 1971. The Evening Standard in particular claiming that Weisz herself gives 1971 for her date of birth.
:::Now if however the official records do indeed show 1970 as date of birth, that would take priority of course. But that can't simply be claimed as it was before, but that requires a "proof" and correct citation (of the official record). In particular if one of our editors has checked that via ancestry.com (or some other website) then that site needs to cited ([[WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT]]). This is important because not any genealogy website is necessarily particularly reliable and it also depends on which official documents they used. Official compiled lists for instance may differ from the actual birth certificate (due copy errors or typos). For that even if an editor actually went to authorities to look at the public records himself, he needs to cite the exact document he used.
:::As I said before the majority of reliable sources did/do carry 1971 (and they can and presumably did check public records as well), so to prove them wrong one Time Magazin article is not cutting it, but we need an exact citation to the official document carrying the correct date and/or a reference to the website that was used to check an online copy of it.--[[User:Kmhkmh|Kmhkmh]] ([[User talk:Kmhkmh|talk]]) 00:47, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
::::Go to ancestry.com and check it yourself. I've already checked it there numerous times, and at http://www.findmypast.co.uk/ (although it's a lot easier to see it at ancestry). [[User:All Hallow's Wraith|All Hallow's Wraith]] ([[User talk:All Hallow's Wraith|talk]]) 01:09, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
:::::I don't have access to ancestry.com. However that doesn't change what I've said above regarding/citation and reference. In your edit you claim you've checked a copy of the actual birth certificate, but in your footnote you write it was "registers first quarter of March 1970" (presumably a list?). So which is it now?

::::: Aside from the issue of the correct date, the the current footnote is still a bit off citing some unspecified Guardian article with a different date. I already gave a concrete guardian article and explained that the issue is not merely some Guardian article but her biography at the BFI, her NNDB entry, Associated Press and many British papers over the last decade (search via Google or Highbeam).

::::: If we go with official registration there is no need to cite BFI database entry (while ignoring her actual biography at BFI). Similarly instead of an unspecified Guardian article, we should simply state that some publication carried a different date in the past. Keeping the Time Magazin article might be ok, to avoid the impression of original research. However it should be compiled in the first footnote (and be properly cited as well). It does make much sense compiling several sources on her date of birth into one footnote and then having an additional single source for the same purpose in a separate footnote.--[[User:Kmhkmh|Kmhkmh]] ([[User talk:Kmhkmh|talk]]) 01:34, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
::::::You don't need a subscription to ancestry.com. Just search for Rachel (Hannah) Weisz and limit your results to 1970; her birth was registered in the first quarter of 1970, that is what I meant. Anyone can do that search without paying for any subscription (I think). BTW, NNDB is a completely unreliable source, and, as for The Associated Press, last year they gave her age as 41 - [http://www.usatoday.com/life/topstories/2011-06-26-4034180002_x.htm here]. So it depends on what day you're asking them. [[User:All Hallow's Wraith|All Hallow's Wraith]] ([[User talk:All Hallow's Wraith|talk]]) 04:01, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
::::::You need a subscription on ancestry.com to see to the result (and to verify the actual document used). However after restricting the search to 1 year, I'm getting indeed only one match. findmypast works slightly better without registration in that regard as it returns you 1 match for the 68-72 and list some limited data. This way we can also exclude that there is not another Rachel Weisz born in 1971. Although Rachel is not a common name, you still a few hits when searching over larger periods, so explicitly excluding 1971 is important. As far as the NNDB is concerned, I'm not arguing it is particularly reliable (I wouldn't use it as a single source for anything), but that a large number of "reliable" sources was carrying 1971 during the last decade (rather than "just some guardian article"). But be that as it may, I agree with you regarding the date of birth and the WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT got fixed as well in the mean time, so from my perspective the article is fine now.--[[User:Kmhkmh|Kmhkmh]] ([[User talk:Kmhkmh|talk]]) 08:36, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
::::::::Well, there you go, only one Rachel Hannah Weisz born in 1970, none in 1971. Mother's maiden name is listed as "Teich" (if you search for Weisz Teich you will get the same result on ancestry.com... and her sister). [[User:All Hallow's Wraith|All Hallow's Wraith]] ([[User talk:All Hallow's Wraith|talk]]) 08:49, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::Yes (see above) and thanks for clearing that up.--[[User:Kmhkmh|Kmhkmh]] ([[User talk:Kmhkmh|talk]]) 08:53, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
::::::::::As best I can remember I first met Rachel shortly after the start of her first year at University, i.e. September or October 1988. If she had been born in 1971, she'd have been 17 (and below legal drinking age). This was sufficiently uncommon amongst first year students that I'd have known about it. <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/81.98.254.105|81.98.254.105]] ([[User talk:81.98.254.105|talk]]) 00:10, 19 July 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:::::::::::Why on earth is this still unresolved? The birth of Rachel Hannah Weisz, whose mother's maiden name was Teich, was registered at Westminster in the first quarter of 1970, on page 2432 of volume 5E.[[Special:Contributions/146.200.7.113|146.200.7.113]] ([[User talk:146.200.7.113|talk]]) 08:45, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
::::::::::::I edited the birth year because the "concluding evidence" was based on a birth registration (accessed through genealogy websites like Ancestry.com). [[WP:BLPPRIMARY]] and [[WP:ANCESTRY.COM]] state against using primary sources, including birth registries and so on. As it stands, it seems like non-primary sources have given conflicting birth years. [[User:Clear Looking Glass|Clear Looking Glass]] ([[User talk:Clear Looking Glass|talk]]) 22:46, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
:::::::::::::I honestly believe in [[WP:IAR|ignoring all rules]] here. When there are public records (even records available in the United States) saying 1970, I think we should trust them over a few inaccurate reports. [[User:Trillfendi|Trillfendi]] ([[User talk:Trillfendi|talk]]) 23:04, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
::::::::::::::I'm not sure why Weisz should be an exception. If primary sources are the only definite proof then I'd wait until reliable, non-primary sources can be found sorting this out. Since the usable sources give conflicting years, I don't see why we can't leave the two years as it is. [[User:Clear Looking Glass|Clear Looking Glass]] ([[User talk:Clear Looking Glass|talk]]) 07:45, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

The birth registration is for 1970. Birth registered Rachel Hannah Weisz Q1 1970, District - Westminster London. Mother's maiden name Teich. Volume 5E, page 2432. Record set: England & Wales Births 1937-2006 [[User:NewarkCastleGhost|NewarkCastleGhost]] ([[User talk:NewarkCastleGhost|talk]]) 22:45, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

It is bizarre to ignore a perfectly good, authoritative primary source because some magazines say differently. [[User:NewarkCastleGhost|NewarkCastleGhost]] ([[User talk:NewarkCastleGhost|talk]]) 22:58, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

:I agree. It is straightforward to check that there were only two Rachel Weisz's born in the 1970s (one in 1970 and the other in 1974). Only one of those is called "Rachel Hannah" (the one born in 1970) and she was the only one born in Westminster. There is no risk of mis-identification here. The proper date can still be sourced through a secondary source, but the 1971 date is wrong. Does anybody here actually think the 1971 date is correct? [[WP:IAR]] is supposed to prevent the application of rules resulting in spreading misinformation. [[User:Betty Logan|Betty Logan]] ([[User talk:Betty Logan|talk]]) 01:37, 29 September 2022 (UTC)


Per [[WP:DOB]]: {{tq|If multiple independent reliable sources state differing years or dates of birth in conflict, include all birth dates/years for which a reliable source exists, clearly noting discrepancies. In this situation, editors must not include only one date/year which they consider "most likely", or include merely a single date from one of two or more reliable sources. Original research must not be used to extrapolate the date of birth.}}
::Agreed. It is clear which secondary sources are correct (1970) and which are false (1971), and we have consensus on this talk page. I have updated the article. [[User:Cagliost|cagliost]] ([[User talk:Cagliost|talk]]) 20:17, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
:::@[[User:Cagliost|Cagliost]] @[[User:Betty Logan|Betty Logan]] - I still think we should put both years, as the subject is still a living person, has claimed to be born in 1971, and sources have given both 1970 and 1971, with the only definitive proof appearing to be a primary source (birth index accessed via sites like Ancestry.com; [[WP:BLPPRIMARY]]). If there was a third-party source that could tackle this issue, as has been done with public figures who have been caught in "age scandals"[https://www.huffpost.com/entry/we-can-prove-margot-robbie-isnt-lying-about-her-age_n_573617dfe4b060aa781a3de5] I'd feel more comfortable putting down 1970 as the sole year. But other users have brought up [[WP:IAR]] and agree in the 1970 birth year because it's what she was registered as in the UK.
:::Honestly, though it is just speculation on my part, it seems likely that Weisz claimed 1971 because of [[Age fabrication|age fabrication]], which has been especially prevalent in industries like the entertainment world for a variety of reasons (see people like [[Rebel Wilson]], [[Joan Crawford]] and countless other examples). But obviously my opinion is irrelevant to the point at hand. [[User:Clear Looking Glass|Clear Looking Glass]] ([[User talk:Clear Looking Glass|talk]]) 03:47, 18 January 2023 (UTC)


The article currently fails to meet this standard quite badly, given it picks one date to display on the page and relegates the rest to an efn. Further, the efn includes a sentence of original research. I will remove the OR in a moment, but I not in a position at the moment to fully un-pick and fix this part of the page. I'm therefore leaving this message on the talk page in case anyone else is able to fix it in the meantime. [[User:JustAnotherCompanion|JustAnotherCompanion]] ([[User talk:JustAnotherCompanion|talk]]) 21:23, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
::::I think the 1971 date belongs in the footnote. The secondary source BFI Database which gives 1970 says "Born Rachel Hannah Weisz. Checked birth at Family Records Centre, London. Born in Westminster, London registration district." This is more reliable than magazine articles which haven't checked birth records and are just repeating a falsehood. [[User:Cagliost|cagliost]] ([[User talk:Cagliost|talk]]) 08:57, 18 January 2023 (UTC)


:Do not do this. Please review the discussion at [[Talk:Rachel Weisz/Archive 2]]. [[User:Cagliost|cagliost]] ([[User talk:Cagliost|talk]]) 10:10, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
::::This is a similar situation to when multiple secondary sources falsely claimed Ronnie Hazlehurst wrote lyrics for S Club 7 [https://www.theregister.com/2007/10/03/wikipedia_obituary_cut_and_paste/]. Common sense should prevail. We have secondary sources for both dates, but it's clear which ones are reliable and which ones are not. That Rachel Weisz herself once (according to the Evening Standard, a source of middling quality) gave the false date is interesting and perhaps belongs in the article or notes, but we are not obliged to report it as fact. [[User:Cagliost|cagliost]] ([[User talk:Cagliost|talk]]) 09:01, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 10:10, 24 October 2024

Good articleRachel Weisz has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 10, 2011Good article nomineeListed
March 8, 2011Featured article candidateNot promoted
Current status: Good article

Date of birth

[edit]

Per WP:DOB: If multiple independent reliable sources state differing years or dates of birth in conflict, include all birth dates/years for which a reliable source exists, clearly noting discrepancies. In this situation, editors must not include only one date/year which they consider "most likely", or include merely a single date from one of two or more reliable sources. Original research must not be used to extrapolate the date of birth.

The article currently fails to meet this standard quite badly, given it picks one date to display on the page and relegates the rest to an efn. Further, the efn includes a sentence of original research. I will remove the OR in a moment, but I not in a position at the moment to fully un-pick and fix this part of the page. I'm therefore leaving this message on the talk page in case anyone else is able to fix it in the meantime. JustAnotherCompanion (talk) 21:23, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do not do this. Please review the discussion at Talk:Rachel Weisz/Archive 2. cagliost (talk) 10:10, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rachel_Weisz&oldid=1253099254"