Talk:Rachel Weisz/Archive 2

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

Apparent discrepancy in dates

The article says the following: "Weisz's performances also include... the 2006 revival of A Streetcar Named Desire. Her portrayal of Blanche DuBois in the latter play earned her the Critics' Circle Theatre Award for Best Actress of 2009."

What accounts for the discrepancy in dates? Ishboyfay (talk) 04:28, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Most pointless thing ever put in a Wiki page?

I quote "In 2001 she was involved in a traffic accident, while traveling in a cab that was hit by a truck, Weisz was unharmed.". What else happened in 2001 that didn't involve her being harmed?

Although harshly put, I agree. Trek qo (talk) 23:46, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Nationality

Taking a cue from pages of other people who gained US citizenship later in life (such as Craig Ferguson, I think her nationality should be given as English-American, calling her American doesn't sound right as she was born and spend most of her life in the UK but calling her English makes no sense as she is officially a US citizen. Can a mod weigh in please?? Tim1423 (talk) 14:15, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mosbio#Opening paragraph states that the lead should mention her nationality when she became notable. She's been notable for years now but only an American citizen very recently, so English is what should be given in the lead. The later prose can explain her dual citizenship. GRAPPLE X 14:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
I guess I should have taken a look at the talk page before I made the edit just now. I still stand by it. "English-born American" reflects both the fact that she was born in England and used to identify as English (and may still do so), and the fact the she is now an American citizen. Besides which, the guideline does not require "nationality when becoming notable" (note the "or"). Tulipclaymore (talk) 18:23, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
This wants addressing once and for all - compare the mess that is Marina Sirtis's page against other British-born naturalised American citizens such as David Coverdale, Peter Frampton or Anthony Hopkins. 94.194.15.94 (talk) 02:48, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree that there ought to be some mention of the fact—either in the lead or elsewhere in the article—that she is now English–American. This would be a minor emendation and would bring the article up to date with the most accurate information. Lightfootlad (talk) 12:19, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

When the shoe is on the other foot, in the cases of Gwyneth Paltrow or Madonna for example, they would always be considered American women, regardless of whether they become naturalised British citizens, marry English men, or live in England for a 100 years. They were born and raised in America and America is the source of their cultural background, so it's misleading to call them anything other than American. The same applies to Rachel Weisz in reverse. She's an English woman living in America, and she'd always be English regardless of whether she became an American citizen or a citizen of Uzbekistan! lol. 81.178.244.55 (talk) 17:51, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

"Other" ancestry

I restored the word "other" ancestry, because, as the article states, Weisz's mother's father was of Austrian Jewish background, and Weisz's mother's mother was of "Catholic Viennese" and Italian. So, her mother's "other" (other than Austrian Jewish) ancestry is "Catholic Viennese" and Italian. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 02:58, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Regina

her voice in the above TV/film about Regina Jonas — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.7.48 (talk) 15:02, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 79 external links on Rachel Weisz. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:04, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Personal life - Daniel Craig

As of 2011 she is in a relationship with her Dream House co-star and Bond star Daniel Craig. They were seen on her 41st birthday in a Hollywood restaurant, reports said they were all over each other.[93]

Not that I know much about this subject, but "reports said they were all over each other" sounds terribly unprofessional. Any one up for editing it? The reference is from dailymail.co.uk but the article is no longer available. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PoconutPirate (talk • contribs) 00:20, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I removed the sentence, the reference was not available and it was not a fact to really point out anyway.--GDuwenTell me! 02:56, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

There was a change in name on 10 August 2017. Are there any verified references that she legally changed her name? By aspect of marriage, names are not automatically altered. JayMike (talk) 15:33, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Rachel Weisz. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:40, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Rachel Weisz. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:25, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

The dates don't tally. Her parents must have been small children when they escaped Nazi-occupied Europe. One wouldn't understand that from the article. Monosig (talk) 01:39, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

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 [1]) 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.--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.--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, the day before her 42nd birthday. 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.--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). 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.--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 - here. So it depends on what day you're asking them. 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.--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). All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 08:49, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes (see above) and thanks for clearing that up.--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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.98.254.105 (talk) 00:10, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
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.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. Clear Looking Glass (talk) 22:46, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
I honestly believe in 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. 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. 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 NewarkCastleGhost (talk) 22:45, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

It is bizarre to ignore a perfectly good, authoritative primary source because some magazines say differently. 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. Betty Logan (talk) 01:37, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
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. cagliost (talk) 20:17, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
@Cagliost @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"[2] 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, 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. Clear Looking Glass (talk) 03:47, 18 January 2023 (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. cagliost (talk) 08:57, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
This is a similar situation to when multiple secondary sources falsely claimed Ronnie Hazlehurst wrote lyrics for S Club 7 [3], and people tried to include this false information on the basis that sources for it existed. 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. cagliost (talk) 09:01, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
@Cagliost - I agree with mentioning the 1971 year in the footnote, and looking at the evidence, I agree with the 1970 birth year. Again, my only problem was that past discussion hinged on citing a primary source (British Birth Index) which can be accessed via Ancestry.com as the definitive proof. Since she is a living person and has supposedly claimed to be born in 1971, which other sources have stated as well as 1970, I was looking at the WP:DOB policy for citing both years.
BUT, WP:BLPPRIMARY states that it might be acceptable to use a reliable secondary source that discusses information obtained via a primary-source, which as you noted, the British Film Institute profile falls under. I see no problem with the reliability of the BFI archive (as do other users). It's certainly not IMDb AFAIK and several other sources support 1970. Clear Looking Glass (talk) 18:40, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Some more sources giving 1970:

cagliost (talk) 19:32, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rachel_Weisz/Archive_2&oldid=1154220550"