Jump to content

Talk:Russell Crowe

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Erik Veland (talk | contribs) at 12:26, 5 January 2015 (Removal of content from "Altercations and controversies"). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

New Zealander and Australian

Why are some so quick to revert back to Crowe being a New Zealander. The man himself, has publicly stated that he identifies himself as an Australian. It is important to highlight his New Zealand heritage, but equally his Australian identity. Hence, why one of 'New Zealand-born Australian', or 'New Zealander Australian' would make far more sense. The link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdTaa_nLkok&t=12m22s

Secret Service

Crown may well have been threatened by Al Qaeda, though they made a mistake if they thought he was an American. But he would not have been protected by the US Secret Service. The SS only guards the president and top American officials. There is little to no likelihood that they would be used to guard a foreign actor. If there were government provided guards, FBI is more likely.Royalcourtier (talk) 20:09, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the challenged assertion as well as the one next to it regarding Scotland Yard. There was no supporting source at all. Elizium23 (talk) 21:08, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of content from "Altercations and controversies"

An editor has removed a huge amount of information labeling the cuts as "not notable" and "pov". While the section is not without its problems I don't agree that making huge sweeping cuts to the section is a constructive approach to fixing it. There are a couple of issues I have:

  • Removing information on the grounds it is "not notable". This is a false pretext for removing content since notability only pertains to whether an article should exist. WP:NOTEWORTHY specifically states that notability criteria does not apply to article content.
  • Secondly, removing content on the grounds it is not neutral is not a constructive way to fixing the problems. If something is not neutral then it can usually be fixed with a re-write, or by adding more content to balance the WP:NPOV concerns.

I suggest the following preliminary steps to address the problems with the section:

  1. Remove content that is a direct BLP concern only i.e. if the content is potentially libelous.
  2. If something is not sourced then tag it or remove it at your own discretion.
  3. If a claim is attributed to a source that you believe does not meet the criteria for WP:RS then either find an alternative source or tag it.
  4. If something is not neutral worded, then try and re-write it so it is or otherwise tag it.

Bearing these concerns in mind I am going to restore the content since it has been incorrectly removed under one criterion that does not apply, and no effort has been made to address the second problem constructively. Removing huge amounts of sourced information under sweeping statements looks like a whitewash at best and is disruptive at worst. Betty Logan (talk) 00:15, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

→ This section keeps getting removed. Suggest maybe an edit lock as it is probably a concerted effort at controlling image as he's currently releasing his editorial debut. Section restored again, as well as added recent controversy re "actresses acting their age". This is his own words, so would be hard to remove under a POV clause. Erik Veland (talk) 12:26, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that Crowes controversial and aggressive public participation in circumcision debate is a notable part of his image especially given the long duration of his participation and its obvious newsworthiness in publications with large distribution e.g. Crowe uses his twitter account to enter controversial public debates on a range of issues, such as his opposition to circumcision.[1][2] Diggers2004 (talk) 03:35, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Most celebrities have Twitter accounts, and most celebrities have opinions on a wide range of topics, but there is a substantial difference between someone just expressing a viewpoint and somebody legitimately taking part in a debate i.e. Liz Taylor and AIDS, Angelina Jolie and sexual violence in war zones etc. If he has engaged in activism against circumcision then I agree his views on the subject would be relevant then, but they should be framed within the context of that debate. You have to bear in mind that he is ultimately only notable for his work related to film, and trivial mentions of his opinions are pursuant to that. Betty Logan (talk) 16:30, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see the distinction. Thanks Diggers2004 (talk) 01:38, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ "Russell Crowe tweets in support of mother trying to stop circumcision of son". http://www.news.com.au. Herald-Sun (News Corp). Retrieved 13 November 2014. {{cite web}}: External link in |website= (help)
  2. ^ "Russell Crowe sorry for anti-circumcision tweets?". International Business Times . 13 June 2011. Retrieved 14 June 2011. {{cite news}}: line feed character in |newspaper= at position 31 (help)