Jump to content

Talk:Nicole Kidman

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 72.242.102.242 (talk) at 18:22, 24 July 2014 (→She is an Australian-American actress). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

producing

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

Separation date wrong

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

BLP violation removed, stable version restored

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Irish descent based on unreliable source

The source used to support Kidman's Irish descent [1] seems to more of a blog post than a news item. The craziest thing is, it's in the Technology section of the site. The post itself is sourced to ancestry.com, which is itself not a reliable source. I believe we need a better source for this or the claim and category should be removed. Yworo (talk) 16:04, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New controversy

Now that the two previous turf wars have been resolved, I think I shall start another :)

What about Category:Former_Scientologists

Very well sourced, and most of the same arguments regarding Catholicism above apply. Been discussed a ton, by many RS so I think the bar of notability and BLPCAT are clearly met. Will wait for comments before boldness. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:46, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell from the sources, she never actually became a Scientologist. It's a religious category, so you'd have to show that she at one time clearly self-identified as one, rather than being identified by a third party as one. Yworo (talk) 22:49, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) - * - Category:Former_Scientologists - please do not be bold with this. Its a WP:BLPCAT - explain and cite your case for inclusion here. Youreallycan (talk) 22:51, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be really careful with this one. See Nicole Kidman Refuses To Answer Scientology Question (VIDEO): "Nicole Kidman iced over when British reporter Andrew Marr brought up 'one of the things you haven't talked about before' on his BBC show. That topic was her ex-husband's religion." I'm a firm believer in "do no harm". This looks like a sensitive issue for her. People go to their spouse's churches all the time without actually converting, and lacking any direct statement, would assume that's what happened here. Yworo (talk) 22:56, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will refrain from being bold unless I can find good sourcing - but I think there is more than just attending. She is widely described as a former Scientology (although I realize that does not meet the bar for BLPCAT), and her children were born under Scientology ceremony/practices etc.

With three objectors you should refrain from the addition without further discussion here, even if you think you have good sourcing please discuss first. Youreallycan (talk) 23:03, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I thinks that just two objectors but I'm sure it'll be three sooner or later. :-) Yworo (talk) 23:05, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes, thanks - thanks heavens its not a straw poll. Youreallycan (talk) 23:10, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify before I waste a ton of time. Per the BLPCAT "And" discussion above - The relevance to her notability/career/personal life has already been established via the plethora of sources available commenting. We just need to satisfy the first clause, which is Kidman self identifying? (would discussing leaving the church satisfy that one time she was in the church?) Gaijin42 (talk) 23:29, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, ask yourself about the waste of time - How long it is since you assert she was a Sc and left that ? - nearly fourteen years - and then ask yourself why your desired addition is missing after a decade and a half? - - Youreallycan (talk) 23:32, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a source that pretty much says that despite the fact that some sources reported that she was a "half-hearted follower", she remained silent about Scientology except to make the statement "I am not a Scientologist". I don't think you are going to find adequate sources for this. Yworo (talk) 23:35, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, that a copy of an old version of the Wikipedia article. But I don't think you will find any statements of self-ident, none the less. Yworo (talk) 23:38, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@YouReallyCan - She has been catholic _her whole life_ and that just got added today, so I don't think that argument works :) Im ok with wasting my time searching for a source that doesn't exist. Im not ok with wasting my time if the goalpost is going to move after I find it. Gaijin42 (talk) 23:38, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
She has not been a Catholic her whole life either, not as far as wikipedia is concerned. Waste your time if you want but ask yourself - why you think you want it add it after a decade and a half of it not being added.Youreallycan (talk) 23:41, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Because (I think) its the truth? Because people are interested? I don't have any big agenda here. Im suprised it hasn't been on her article since the breakup. (although I was not aware of the strictness of BLPCAT until I got involved on the catholic thing from a BLP noticeboard posting. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:38, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Yworo (talk) 03:04, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the question was why I wanted it, not why it should be included. beyond that, I think the "verifiability" standard is way passed on this. BLPCAT is a standard beyond that. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:10, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think what you're running into here is a problem specific to scientology, and related to what's arguably a shortcoming in BLPCAT. Scientology categorizes public resignation from the group as a "suppressive act," so if Nicole ever explicitly stated that she'd quit, she'd likely be permanently banned from communicating with her adopted children, among other things. Under BLPCAT, I can't, for example, safely categorize a woman as a lesbian simply because she's married to another woman, she needs to self-identify as a lesbian to a source we consider reliable. Similarly, I can't call Nicole a scientologist or ex-scientologist, even though her progress to the level of OT II was documented in scientology's own publications, and her departure from the organization was nearly as obvious. Very few people can be categorized as ex-scientologists on wikipedia, and that won't change until scientology or BLPCAT change. 50.0.101.103 (talk) 11:25, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Highest civilian honour

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

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

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

She is an Australian-American actress

Unlike most countries, if a child is born within any U.S. state or territory, they are automatically an American citizen. Since her parents were Australian, she is either an American or Australian-American, regardless of the what particular nationality she considers herself. This should be taken into account. Madd0817 (talk) 07:31, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"American" gets a spot in both of your options, but "Australian" is mentioned in only one of them. She has also been an Australian citizen since Day 1 of her life. Why not propose options that don't favour one side to the detriment of the other? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 07:54, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The OP is absolutely correct, and the lede sentence of a BLP always describes citizenship, not ethnicity. So it should be changed to Australian-American, as her dual citizenship is documented in the article itself. Elizium23 (talk) 08:01, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, this addition should be bolstered by a stern warning in a hidden comment, because I can guarantee you that there will be a slow edit war to change it back owing to the large number of people who do not understand how the lede works here. Elizium23 (talk) 08:03, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, the OP is not "absolutely correct". He gave 2 options, only one of which you're supporting (Australian-American). The OP's first option, that of calling her American with no mention of Australian, is most certainly NOT a goer. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 08:16, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Other than attacking the both of us based on superficial matters, do you have any opinion about the disposition of the assertion or can I go ahead and change it as agreed by me and the OP? Elizium23 (talk) 09:06, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cool down, pal. I am not attacking anyone. You come out with hyperbole, and I show it up for what it is. That's called debate. If it was so "superficial", why did you make that silly and self-righteous statement in the first place? Btw, "stern warnings" are not a feature of the collegiate spirit that makes Wikipedia work so well. It's all about consensus, not about any one editor laying down the law and issuing stern warnings not to change anything. That would be called the work of a control freak.
Yes, I agree with the OP's second option, calling her "Australian-American". -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 09:22, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Calling her Australian-American is pedantic and misleading. The lede ought not to be introducing the technical legal position in line 1! Whatever her legal entitlement to claim American citizenship (probably also available to her because of her marriage to Tom Cruise, actually) she is "Australian" in any normal parlance. She didn't appear on any sets of American stamps, did she? And where are her various American medals and honours? I agreee that the point of her dual citizenship deserves inclusion later in the article, and it already has it.Ironman1104 (talk) 22:25, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Kidman's work has earned her a Star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame, three Golden Globe Awards, one BAFTA, and an Academy Award. Those awards, except for the one BAFTA (which isn't Australian either) are American honours. And how many Australian films has she starred in, vs. American ones? Elizium23 (talk) 15:50, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You don't answer my point by referring to her awards in the international film industry. Why not engage with my point. She has not received awards given to distinguished American citizens. Because the US treats her as a distinguished Australian. Ironman1104 (talk) 22:25, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I gave a few examples of American honours - not international ones - which she has received for her career. As you may know, the American film industry is vastly larger than the Australian one; in Australia, Kidman is a big fish in a small pond, and will naturally garner honours which are routinely given to citizens of that country. Furthermore, the United States does not typically honour her citizens with civilian accolades merely for work in the film industry. So no, I will not compare apples and oranges here. However, I count 20 Australian films (all at the beginning of her career) and post-breakthrough, over 30 American films in her filmography. She married Tom Cruise, an American, in 1990, and had children who appear to consider themselves American (they live now with Cruise and shun their mother)[2] Then she married Keith Urban, a New Zealander, in Sydney, but they live in New York City[3] I could not locate any sources that say if Kidman maintains a residence in Australia. But I doubt that her work schedule would permit her to spend much time there, since she must spend quite a lot of time on location and in Los Angeles for American movie shoots. Then we have this in her article: Kidman was appointed goodwill ambassador of the United Nations Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM) in 2006.[2] In this capacity, Kidman has addressed international audiences at UN events, raised awareness through the media and testified before the United States House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs to support the International Violence against Women Act. and On 8 January 2010, alongside Nancy Pelosi, Joan Chen and Joe Torre, Kidman attended the ceremony to help Family Violence Prevention Fund break ground on a new international center located in the Presidio of San Francisco. so it seems to me that she is rather involved in US politics and philanthropy (not to mention her international work with the United Nations) so her American citizenship is unquestionably notable and passes criteria of WP:MOSBIO easily. Elizium23 (talk) 22:43, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is a verbose way of making a non-point. Like many other film stars, she works extensively in America and has an American residence. So what? So does Billy Connolly, who lives full time in New York. She has philanthopic interests. So what? Cruise is American, and her children are US citizens. So what? None of this makes her any more than formally an American, which she has always been because of her birth in Hawaii. And, furthermore, the notion of "Australian-American" is legally meaningless and therefore un-encyclopaedic. Ironman1104 (talk) 13:26, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that her career in America is notable, that our assertion of Australian-American citizenship passes WP:MOSBIO so I have offered you an argument based on policy and guidelines, where you have merely responded, "pedantic" and "so what" and "unencyclopedic" which to me don't hold any water. Elizium23 (talk) 15:26, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You again advance material which does not go to the point I made. I do not dispute that she is a well-known film actress and, as everyone knows, much of that industry is based in the US so, if you prefer, her career in the US is "notable". And so is Billy Connolly's. That does not make her "Australian-American". Nor is Sean Connery Scottish-Bahamian. She is Australian, and happens to be have been born in Hawaii. And you have not even tried to engage with my point that "Australian-American" has no legal content whatever and that use of this meaningless term is unencyclopaedic.Ironman1104 (talk) 16:17, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole Kidman is NOT American. I've just had this argument with someone over at the Mila Kunis page, Apparently Kunis is soley American, which is obvious misleading crap. Kidman, however is not American. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.28.89.152 (talk) 16:28, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, she was born in Hawaii and that makes her an American citizen. But she's not SOLELY an American. Her parents are Australian, she's always been an Australian citizen, and that's where she grew up, where she obtained her accent and her cultural background, and where she votes (because it's compulsory for Aussie citizens to vote no matter where in the world they may happen to be on election day or no matter where they often hang out or even have other residences). -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 23:47, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We seem at last to be reaching consensus here that she is neither American (save in formal citizenship) nor Australian-American (meaningless). Ironman1104 (talk) 15:12, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

what a load of irrelevant crap..some horny aussie teenager has a problem with americans so dispite the fact she was born and lives in the us she`s not an american..meanwhile some patriotic dolt from the other side says she is..who cares..1,000,000,000 people in the world starving to death and you care about this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.242.102.242 (talk) 18:05, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Grace of Monaco

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

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

Before I Go To Sleep

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

Production Company

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

Added 'Before I Go to Sleep'

Someone removed it. Why? She's currently filming it in London! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.25.144.163 (talk) 22:32, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a reliable secondary source that says it is in production? This news story from February 6 says it is yet to start. Elizium23 (talk) 02:40, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

http://entertainment.stv.tv/showbiz/320059-colin-firth-joins-nicole-kidman-in-before-i-go-to-sleep/

Set to start in Feb. But it's defo happening. Should be there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.25.144.163 (talk) 15:49, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nationality

There was a consensus which can be found in the archives that Kidman's American citizenship is incidental and should not be in the lead sentence at all. She was born to Australian parents who just happened to be in Hawaii while pursuing their education. She returned to and was raised in Australia, and when asked, she strongly identifies as Australian. Part and parcel of our biography of living persons policy is that when a living subject has expressed a preference between their multiple nationalities, we use the one they identify as hearth and home, and don't try to assimilate them to an incidental or acquired nationality in the lead sentence, which for most people should have just one nationality. Incidental and acquired nationalities are detailed in the article text and infobox, but not in the lead sentence. See WP:OPENPARA for further details on this. Yworo (talk) 04:01, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you disagree with this, please join the discussion on the intent of OPENPARA here rather than edit warring. I happen to be very familiar with what that intent is, having been involved in the crafting of the current, admittedly bad, wording. Yworo (talk) 04:39, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Awards and nominations

The awards and nominations list does not belong here anymore, it is hosted at List of awards and nominations received by Nicole Kidman. If someone wishes to add back the awards to this article, please nominate the other one for deletion first. Elizium23 (talk) 23:58, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree. Will the IP please discuss the matter before reinstating the inaccessible, redundant list within a list? Nymf talk to me 18:24, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
While I do agree there is no need to have duplicated information about awards, that isn't actually what we have. The filmography here includes information that we do not have in the list article. I moved over the one reference from here, since the list article had only one reference, IMDB. There are also awards mentioned here that are not mentioned in the list article. You shouldn't remove an award listed here unless it is on the list article or you have moved it there.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 23:17, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have made the point of removing all entries that were already included on the list page and moving any associated references. Now there are just award entries that need to be moved over to that page.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 23:53, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Award

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alliance_of_Women_Film_Journalists 'award' has been removed, not a credible enough award to warrant being mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.28.91.102 (talk) 07:35, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Birth name

[4] - "...revealed recently to InStyle that her parents actually gave her the Hawaiian name of Hokulani after birth...", "My mum called me Hokulani. It means heavenly star," I don't know if this clearly states Hokulani is her birth name. --NeilN talk to me 00:47, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nicole_Kidman&oldid=618305704"