Talk:Helen Mirren/Archive 1

Odyssey Two

"She is particularly well-known for her roles as the female detective Jane Tennison in the Prime Suspect series of television dramas, and as the stern Soviet spaceship commander in the 1984 science fiction film 2010: Odyssey Two, based on the novel by Sir Arthur C. Clarke."

Fair enough she was in it, but i'm not sure that she's well-known for her role in 2010. I'd rate her performances in The Long Good Friday and The Cook, The Thief, His Wife & Her Lover as certainly more career-enhancing... Any problems with trimming the last bit of that sentence out, or at least changing it? Onebravemonkey

Thanks! Much better! --Onebravemonkey 07:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Getting her kit off

Someone tried to add a comment saying She has often appeared nude in movies, including "The Cook the Thief His Wife & Her Lover." It'd be almost easier to list the films where she didn't get her kit off. -- SteveCrook 17:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I think some people would like to know that she often appears nude in movies and "The Cook the Thief His Wife & Her Lover" was a good example which shows her nude. There are many people who could'nt care less that she is a Dame, but would like to see her without clothes. horatio 72.14.70.193

But why that film as opposed to the many others? -- SteveCrook 02:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

If you are going to pick one film as an example, than you have to pick a specific one. Do you have a better example? One in which she looks about the same age as she looks now? The point I wanted to say was that she often appears naked in movies. If someone looks her up on wikipedia they might want specific information like that. Unsigned entry by 72.14.70.193

I'd go for all or nothing. Either list all the films where she gets naked, or none of them. Listing just one implies that there was something special about the way she got naked in that one. If someone does look her up to find out where they can see her naked then it'd be better to list all of them. -- SteveCrook 11:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

You seem to care alot about this entry so I concede to your wishes. This was the first time I ever changed anything on Wikipedia. It is cool to be so powerful. Will you put something there that says she is often nude in her movies? That way it will be done in a way you think appropriate. I will not post here again unless you ask something and you can delete any or all of my comments here if you wish. Take care. Unsigned entry by 72.14.70.193

I care a lot about accuracy and giving the right impression to someone reading the article. But I don't want to put you off contributing to the Wikipedia. I don't think it's right to specifically name The Cook... because she is no more naked in that one film than in many others. In fact there are others where she spends more screen time being naked, like her first feature film, Age of Consent. Most people that know Helen's work already know that she's never been bashful about appearing naked. She's joked about it in interviews. Why not just extend or change the section that currently says The "sexy" image she acquired in her youth has — in the opinion of some — been little affected by encroaching age; she did nothing to detract from it by appearing nude on the cover of the Radio Times for her fiftieth birthday. You could add to that or change it to say something about how she's never been shy of appearing naked, if the part called for it?

You should also sign all of you comments on talk pages like this one with four tilde characters like ~~~~. Comments on talk pages should never be removed because they are a record of the discussion. -- SteveCrook 02:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm

I see a lot of discussion about the nudity vis a vis her movie roles, but it wasn't in the article - guessing there is/was a content dispute?

I did a reformatting of the article...mainly just arranging facts by subject. There was a minor bit of weasel speak ("some people think"....) that I removed. NickBurns 19:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Info

This new article [1] has some interesting info on her ancestry, if anyone's interested in adding Mad Jack 05:31, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Early career

The article seems kind of mixed up on her early career. I'm not sure if you could say she was a "star at the Old Vic" - her performance (with the NYT, therefore amateur) in Anthony and Cleopatra was her significant early work at the RSC, right? Amo 06:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Royal Honours

In the article, there has been a bit or debate on whether Helen Mirren originally declined a CBE before accepting a DBE later. I'm all for inclusion if we can find citable sources for this. I also think the article would be a bit more interesting if there was a story behind it. She seems to have progressed past her anti-monarchial upbringing to where she seems to support and even identify with the Royals (as per her Oscar speech and surrounding interviews). What's everyone else think?Arcayne 19:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that it would be so interesting to have a story behind this so called decline of Damehood. But we definately need to source it and add a citation. I will look on BBC or maybe from a broad sheet. I'll see what I can find. Eagle Owl 20:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

CBS News from 2003 quotes a Sunday Times list. Kbthompson 20:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

...and This is an example of how WP editors can work well together. :) (I had been having some doubts with regards to editors in other articles). Outstanding work, everyone. Drinks are on me.Arcayne 00:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

You can buy the beers next time we're all up at the Grand Canyon, or you can pull me out of the mechanically transmitted excrement ... Good luck. Kbthompson 00:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

The following debate is relevant to this topic. It has been going on between Arcayne and JackofOz, but I've now transferred it to here:

It might be better to explain that in the body of the article rather than just using the tag. People will see her title, and thing either the titling or tag are incorrect. Describing the declining of the Honour might bridge the gap and explain matters better. Maybe you can find a place to add when she has declined title, with a citation. That would be awesome. Arcayne 08:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello Arcayne. The reference to her declining a CBE in 1996 has been in the article all along. She was also invested as a Dame Commander of the British Empire on 5 December 2003. In 1996 she had declined a CBE. I didn't insert that information, but I have no reason to doubt it so I'm prepared to take it on trust. The editor who removed her from the list of people who have declined British honours must have thought, she's now a Dame so how could she have declined an honour? The answer is that she declined a CBE in 1996, but accepted a later DBE. Different honours. I have no issue with the way the article is now. Cheers. JackofOz 10:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate you getting back to me in a timely fashion, Jack. Regarding the Helen Mirren investiture. I think it prudent to reference within the article the process by which she refused one investiture for a lower ranking, but later accepted a higher one (I didn't even know that was or could be done). I don't think we can include her in a category that defines her without including a summary or whatnot of the original declination (and maybe reasons, which might make for noteworthiness) and the subsequent acceptance. You seem like a reasonable enough fellow, and I think that if you still genuinely disagree with me on this, there might be others who disagree as well. We can remove the category listing and discuss it on the Discussion page until some concensus is reached.Arcayne 19:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi again. One thing to understand is that there is no "process", as you put it. A large number of people have been offered honours but declined them, for whatever reason. Some of these people have later accepted an honour. Regardless of that acceptance, they are still people who have, at some time in their lives, declined an honour. List of people who have declined a British honour shows more than 20 people who have declined at one time but accepted at another time (I'm sure it isn't exhaustive. Such details are only infrequently released, being essentially a private matter between the nominee and the Crown, until such time as they are accepted and officially announced to the media). The list includes at least one person (Vanessa Redgrave) who accepted one honour and later declined another. The British honours system is not unified in the sense that I think you understand it. There are various awards, various orders of knighthood, and sundry other honours, none of which is connected to any other except by being part of the overall set of awards that are made to various people at various times for various reasons. Some are made in the Queen's name but on the recommendation of the British government (and some other governments in the Commonwealth make similar recommendations) - and she has no choice but to approve them. Others (such as the Royal Victorian Order) are in her personal gift, to be awarded on her volition as she sees fit, and the government has no say. The only awards that are connected to others are things like the various levels of orders such as the Order of the British Empire. One might be awarded a Membership (MBE), then later a Commandership (CBE), and even still later a Knighthood (KBE). A person could theoretically refuse an MBE, hoping to be later offered a KBE. Their chances might be somwhat diminished by the initial refusal, but that's the risk they take. Or they could refuse a KBE but later accept the entirely unrelated Order of Merit, or the Companion of Honour - or accept a KBE but decline an OM or CH. There are so many possible permutations of circumstances, that we couldn't possibly cover them all. I still think Mirren's article is fine as it stands. But I'm always open for debate about these sorts of things. Cheers. JackofOz 02:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I actually had no real opinion on the matter, aside from citing the earlier declination of honour.

I am guessing it is not usual to port over conversations from individual User Talk Pages to article Discussion pages, but I am thinking that it didn't need to happen in this case. The matter wasn't really all that hotly debated, and the user-to-user conversation was more for my own personal clarification and edification. This doesn't seem the place for it.

So, I think the matter is done, as long as there is a citation for Mirren's earlier refusal of Royal Honour.Arcayne 05:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

A citation seems to be there now, so that's that. (I thought you had asked me to continue this discussion here rather than beween ourselves. Maybe I misinterpreted your message.) JackofOz 06:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

My apologies for my lack of clarity. If there had been more back and forth about it from other users, it might have been well to post the summaried points between us, leaving the individual posts to people interested enough in following them. No harm no foul. You're aces with me, JackofOz. Nice work on providing the cite. :) Arcayne 12:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

As the Queen might say, Noblesse oblige. (However, someone else came up with the citation, not me.) Cheers. JackofOz 03:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers priority assessment

Per debate and discussion re: assessment of the approximate 100 top priority articles of the project, this article has been included as a top priority article. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The Debt

New film: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/7639610.stm Worth a mention? GeneralBelly (talk) 20:15, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Tracey Ullman

Maybe for pop culture section: parodied in Tracey Ullman's State of the Union. GeneralBelly (talk) 20:17, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Place of birth

This article says she was born in Ilford whereas in most pages on the net Chiswick is said to be her place of birth.

It is stated quite clearly in her 60 Minutes interview that she was born in Southend-on-Sea and that she was raised in Leigh-on-Sea. The wikipedia pages for Ilford and Southend both list her as being one of the famous births from their locations. This maybe one of those confusing situations over town - city - suburb - county names that comes up from time to time and as I don't live in the UK I can't give you the specifics about this situation. I know that we had to reword the part about Essex a few months ago as the county line had changed over the years and where she was born isn't exactly in Essex anymore. The Chiswick citation seems less likely as it is in West London some distance away from any locations previously mentioned. This maybe a situation where incorrect information on the net has been repeated in so many places that it has taken on the appearance of fact (see my research, on his discussion page, on the fact that several websites claim that Trey Parker went to school in Fairplay, Colorado even though he lived more than 65 miles away from that community). I have to add that I don't know if that is what is going on here but I suspect that if might be part of it. I know that IMDb lists the city that you mention but if their info is wrong it will have spread all over the net and getting them to alter incorrect information can be difficult at times. Hopefully some UK wikipedian who knows these communities will read your posting and be able to clear up this situation. MarnetteD | Talk 17:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Leigh-on-Sea is almost a suburb of Southend-on-Sea and as Southend is much more famous, if you were from Leigh you might well say you were from Southend because not many people around the world would have heard of Leigh. Chiswick is in West London. Ilford is about 18 miles to the East. Ilford used to be in Essex but as London grew it became part of a London Borough. Southend-on-Sea is another 30 miles to the East from Ilford. With those distances between them and with the number of other, larger and more famous places between them all, that can't be explained by town - city - suburb - county names and it also can't be covered by saying you are from somewhere nearby which is better known. I think that only a birth certificate will be able to resolve this. -- SteveCrook 07:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Plugging Mironov and 1945 into Ancestry.co.uk's search engine [2] produces only one Mironov born that year which was in Essex. That seems to confirm that she was not born in Chiswick. I haven't signed-up for an account so I can't say if it was Ilford or South-end-on-Sea though. --DavidCane 04:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, that is just damn impressive. Good research, DavidCane! I think it important to note about the earlier conversation that where she was born does not change. If she was born in Essex and the county or city borders have changed, it was Essex when she was born. If she was born in an area that is no longer part of Essex proper, we can make note of it, ie. "she was born on the border of what used to be Essex," or some such.Arcayne 17:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I took the liberty of changing this to in Ilford, Essex, now a part of Greater London. I wiki'd the school name, and it should be noted that it is located in Westcliffe-on-Sea (which is adjacent to Southend, and probably a part of greater Southend - if there is such a place). DCE should also be under personal, or awards - not really film. cheers Kbthompson 13:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually Ilford is still in Essex! Keithbowden (talk) 23:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC) (Ilford, Essex)

In some ways, yes. In other was, no. It's like many places on the outer edges on London. It doesn't have a London post code (like E11 or E12) but it's in a London Borough (Redbridge). The postal address is Ilford, Essex but administratively it's in London -- SteveCrook (talk) 01:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Postal Addresses no longer require the "county" just the post town! (eg. "High Road, Ilford, IG1 xxx") best, Sunil060902 (talk) 15:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Ilford has been in Greater London continuously since 1965. Postal counties have been abolished. Postcodes do not correspond to county borders. Ilford is not, in any sense, Essex. Many people just refuse to accept that London is lot bigger than it used to be - even some people who were born after the county borders changed! If she was born in Ilford, it may say Essex on her birth record, as she was born in 1945, and it was in Essex prior to 1965. Westcliff-on-Sea and Leigh-on-Sea are both within the borough of Southend-on-Sea, and part of the same conurbation, hence suburbs of Southend, rather than separate towns. I believe she moved to Southend as a child, but was not born there. F W Nietzsche (talk) 21:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Sexy

I assume that the change to the second sentence has been made for NPOV reasons. However, I would argue that Mirren's image is not a matter of opinion - she has always had a reputation for appearing in "sexy" films and has always been regarded as a "sexy" woman - indeed, her name is almost synonymous with these concepts. Her latest appearance, in "Calendar Girls", supports the statement that her image has not been affected by encroaching age. I would like to change that sentence back. Deb 17:35, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I read that the papparazzi took pictures of her on the beach--wearing a bikini. She looks amazing for her age! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.115.4.113 (talk) 13:50, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

It was actually a while ago, July 2008. But she still looks amazing considering her 63 (at the time) years [3] -- SteveCrook (talk) 14:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Russian name

Being that the article concerns Ms.Mirren herself, not her family, shouldn't her Russian name be given in the feminine, ie. Mironova. I think. --Jquarry 03:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Technically, yes, but it seems to be the custom to Russian or other Slavic families born in (at least) English-speaking countries to not use the gender ending, for simplicity's sake. Daniel Case 07:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Similarly with Nordic or Icelandic people that have the "son" or "daughter" ending in their family names. Sally Magnusson, the daughter of Magnus Magnusson, should really be Sally Magnusdottir (or something similar) but the family appear to have fixed on Magnusson as a family name. -- SteveCrook 10:12, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

This is utter nonsense. Where do you pick your facts from? Out of a hat - or worse: out of your you-know-what? THIS IS THE #1 FRAILTY OF WIKI: people who DO NOT KNOW but go on pretending to themselves - and others - THAT THEY DO.

As a native Russian I can tell, that it's VERY strange to read female name as "Mironov". For Russians it's absurd. If you write the original name, that was written in her passport it was: "Mironova". And then, why, for example, everyone writes "Raisa Gorbacheva" (wife of the Gorbachev), not the "Raisa Gorbachev" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raisa_Gorbacheva). -- Jake7 15:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that's because she was a Russian who lived in Russia. If she had migrated to the USA or the UK, she would probably have become known as "Raisa Gorbachev". She was often referred to as "Mrs Gorbachev" anyway, not "Mrs Gorbacheva". Most English speakers do not know Russian naming conventions, and do not understand the concept of a wife taking her husband's surname but still spelling it differently from her husband's name. JackofOz 01:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I can find no source on the net that spells it with an a at the end. The other question seems to be whether to finish the spelling with an -off or an -ov. It was changed recently to -ov with an attached link that justifies this. Of the seven external links attached that mention this I found it split two for -ov and two for -off. I would just add that on last nights 60 Minutes interview Morley Safer clearly pronounced it -off. Now, Ms Mirren did not give us a pronunciation, but Mr Safer is an affable interviewer and I feel sure that if she had asked him to he would have said -ov, but it also may not have mattered to her. If this difference is simply a British v. American English thing then it clearly should stay -ov and, in any event, I am not actually proposing to change it. I am just posting this here as food for thought for any readers who may go through the same search process that I have and wonder what is happening here at wikipedia. MarnetteD | Talk 18:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

It's real simple. It's spelled "ov" but pronounced "off". Transliterations, particularly into French (which English transliterations often followed) often elect to use the phonetic "off" rather than the literal "ov". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.236.60.11 (talk) 02:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC).

This is correct.

It's simple -- the rule is that you spell HER ACTUAL NAME as she/her parents/whoever ACTUALLY spell it. you don't "correct" someone's name, as given. it doesn't matter what the usual rule is for names in a certain language, or what the transliteration convention ought to be, or whatever. you look at her birth certificate, passport, or whatever info is publicly available, and you stick to that. see how easy it is? because Mirren is 3rd generation English, it really doesn't matter at all what Russian naming conventions are or how Russians usually choose to transliterate it. her name is what it is and you have to correct that. 71.183.146.149 10:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Thinking about this a little more, the birth name that's been reported, Ilyena Vasilievna Mironov, is definitely a bit odd. To russophiles, a female patronymic doesn't sit well with the male version of the surname. Where former Russians have kids in English-speaking countries, the usual options are: (a) make the endings agree (eg. Ilyena Vasilievna Mironova), or (b) give the child the male version of the surname, and exclude the patronymic entirely in favour of either a different middle name or no name at all (eg. Ilyena Jane Mironov, or just Ilyena Mironov). Option (b) is much more common in my experience.

For example, my ex-wife was born in Australia to Russian immigrants, and was registered with the first name Helen, no middle name, and the family surname in the German (!) transliteration that her parents chose when they came here. Within the Russian community, she's often called "Елена Анатолиевна" (with the patronymic derived from her father's name included, but that's purely social and entirely unofficial).

But that's not to say that other alternative namings don't exist, for whatever reason. Maybe Mirren's Dad wanted his name preserved in her patronymic but after all, he wasn't an immigrant and may not have known or cared much about Russian naming practices.

Also, I've often wondered about "Ilyena". It sounds close enough to the pronunciation of Елена to make me think that that's the name her parents had in mind but made an unorthodox transliteration of it. Normally, it would be rendered as Yelena or Elena, sometimes Elyena and even occasionally Yelyena. And she did become "Helen Mirren", not "Eileen Mirren". In any case, what we have is "Ilyena Vasilievna Mironov" which is presumably her legal name regardless of the spelling, and I can't see that we have any business changing it. -- JackofOz 03:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm currently watching an interview with Helen Mirren on the ABC TV show Enough Rope with Andrew Denton, who just asked her what her Russian name was. The transcripts are not yet up on http://www.abc.net.au/tv/enoughrope/, but when they are her Russian name should be amended - she most certainly pronounced an 'a' (possibly even an 'na') at the end of Mironov, and her middle name was different. (Possibly something like 'Lidya', but I didn't quite catch it). Weltuntergang 11:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I also caught it, and I very clearly heard her say - twice - that her birth name was "Ilyena Lydia Mironovna". This is a different version than any we've had to date. There was no mention of any "Vasilievna". I really don't know what to make of it. She said Mironovna means "daughter of Mironov". On the one hand, Mironovna is not a standard Russian feminine ending of a surname. The wife or daughter of a Mr Mironov would be Ms/Mrs Mironova, not Mironovna. I suspect she's a little astray with her Russian, and her real birth name is that which appears in official documents, Mironov. Not even Mironova, let alone Mironovna. It's common in Russian households in Anglo countries, where the family surname has been changed, to refer to each other by what would have been the Russian form, but this is an informal cultural thing, and does not mean that these in-house names have any legal/official standing. I'm sure this applies to families of other non-English speaking backgrounds, too. The other point is just because a person says their original name was X does not always necessarily mean it was in fact X. -- JackofOz 13:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

IMDb (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000545/bio) has her birth name as Illiana Lydia Petrovna Mironova. I'm not advocating either way, but it's interesting to note the variations from many sources. Also, the transcript of the Enough Rope interview mentioned above by Weltuntergang has now been uploaded, but it seems to have been victim to a transcriber with no understanding of Russian, as the following meaningless sentence is rendered: "HELEN MIRREN: Mironov, which means ‘Daughter of Mironov’." The transcriber seems to have accidentally standardised the Mironova that was presumably said. 122.104.106.166 (talk) 13:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

keep in mind that IMBD is not acceptable as a reference or source on wikipedia, per WP:RS. Anastrophe (talk) 17:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

And we're currently saying "Mirren was born Helen Vasilievna Mironov ...". Where did that version come from? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Tatoo

She has a tatoo on her hand, a drunken act of rebellion when she was younger but she dislikes it now that tatoos have become so common.
Can't think of the most appropriate place to include it in the article, maybe under Personal life alongside the mention of her indulging drugs when she was younger? I hope someone will add it where they think most appropriate. -- Horkana (talk) 01:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Filmography table

A few times now, people have put awards into the Notes column in the Filmography table only to have them removed because they're mentioned elsewhere. Might it be worth adding another column for awards? Or making another table for them? I would certainly suggest removing the one award that does seem to remain in the Notes column -- SteveCrook (talk) 21:09, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

If you will take a look we have created a link to a whole separate page for Helen's awards. This link is right at the top of the Awards and recognition section. Stellar work was done on that page by editor NWill I might add. Her awards are so numerous (and well deserved - whoops is that too POV?) to jam into the table. They distort it out of all proportion and make it very difficult to read. Thanks for pointing out the stray one that was still in the note section. MarnetteD | Talk 21:40, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

It is all well and good that you want to go off and spin an awards page, but you did not first broach it here and achieve consensus for removing almost 5000kb of valid article content. It also renders the article incomplete in many cases because the article prose does not cover each individual nomination and award. I do not find your rationale of the listing distorting the table. That is flatly untrue and yes, a little POV. The main article is not overburdened with exceeding any guidelines regarding its size. It is absolutely unacceptable to forge ahead and spin off large amounts of content like this and it is especially inappropriate to edit war, as was done a month ago, to keep this content out of the article. Also along the lines of POV, the wording "Lost to" on the awards page is completely inappropriate. One does not "lose" an award, one simply does not win the ultimate award. This format on the main article page is in keeping with style guidelines outlined at WP:ACTOR and to simply remove this content is doing a huge disservice to Helen Mirren as well as numerous editors in regard to this page. Wildhartlivie (talk) 14:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The table is unreadable for some. I hope that age does not effect your eyes as it has others but the table becomes distorted out of all proportion including crimping to an exceedingly small print when the awards are entered. First, where does it state that consensus needs to be reached before editing. Next, not every award is notable enough to belong in this table while a separate page gives room and scope for all of them. Next, the important awards are mentioned more then once in the body of the articled. There is precedence for this - please see Michael Gambon's main and award pages. And before you ask I did not do the spinoff on that page. Next, I did not put the words "Lost to" on the awards page. It is wildly inaccurate to call it a disservice since all of the info and the work of other editors still exists on Wikipedia. Contrast that to pages that I have worked on for weeks that have been completely deleted. Wildhartlivie you do admirable work here at WikiP so I am sorry to butt heads with you over this. Since you are going to put these back in before gaining consensus please pare them down. MarnetteD | Talk 14:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

One further thought has come to mind that is relevant to the topic. There is a precedent for my thought process in this. Now, I don't remember exactly when but the awards items were removed from the actor infobox some time ago by consensus and at least one of the reasons was the size distortion problems that listing them there caused. Speaking as one who used to work on having those entries accurate I did not feel that it was a disservice to my work on wikiP when they were removed. MarnetteD | Talk 17:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Coke stuff

In my POV, there is undue weight give to the coke use and quotation in the "Personal" section. OK she used and enjoyed coke in the past and then decided it was bad and stopped using, but do we need to give it such extensive coverage in the article? Comments please. --BwB (talk) 13:08, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I added the information about why she stopped using it as previously there was only infomration regarding her stating she enjoyed using cocaine, and I believed having only half the information is a form of personal attack against the subject (simply stating she did something illegal and then not adding information about why she decided to stop, when said information was avaiable in the same reference). How do you suggest we shorten it? It's the same set of references that back up her date rape, which I belive is not a trrivial subject. Freikorp (talk) 02:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Freikorp. I will draft a version here later today for discussion. --BwB (talk) 10:27, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Current text

In a GQ interview in 2008, Mirren stated she had been date raped as a student and had often taken cocaine at parties during the 1980s. She was quoted by GQ saying, "I loved coke. I never did a lot, just a little bit at parties". She said she never touched the drug again after reading that Klaus Barbie, who was known as the Butcher of Lyon for his role in the deaths of 4,000 people during World War Two, made a living from cocaine dealing. Saying "And I read that in the paper, and all the cards fell into place and I saw how my little sniff of cocaine at a party had an absolute direct route to this fucking horrible man in South America. And from that day I never touched cocaine again. Until that moment I had never grasped the full horrifying structure of what brings coke to our parties in Britain."

Suggested draft

In a GQ interview in 2008, Mirren stated she had been date raped as a student and had often taken cocaine at parties during the 1980s. She stopped using the drug after reading that Klaus Barbie made a living from cocaine dealing. --BwB (talk) 11:38, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks good to me :) Freikorp (talk) 23:57, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

OK I'll post it. --BwB (talk) 07:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Birth name

The British Birth Records, searchable at ancestry.com, list her as "Helen Lydia Mironoff" (emphasis mine), rather than "Mironov". That may be original research, but - 1. It's the most accurate source possible, and 2. It's also the spelling given in this New Yorker profile in 2006. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 07:15, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the post. As a followup to your research I can add that her autobiography contains pictures of a couple of letters that she wrote as a child and she spells her last name with the "ff". On the other hand the book uses the "v" consistently throughout the rest of the text when referring to her paternal family and her birthname. I suspect that this may be a "ff" usage has been replaced by "v" by some translation convention over the years (in the 1960s and 70s I know that books would spell the Czars family name Romanoff almost as often as it was Romanov but you can't find the earlier spelling at all now.) Based on my limited knowledge of this I would not necessarily advocate changing the spelling on our page - though I also would not object if the consensus was to change it. I wonder if adding a footnote about the "ff" - "v" situation might not be the way to go. I've been meaning to post about this for awhile so thanks for getting the ball rolling. MarnetteD | Talk 15:34, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Sure, a footnote could be a good idea. But if the name was spelt "ff" in the '40s, shouldn't that be the way we keep it in the article? I.e., even if the name was changed to "V" later, that wouldn't retroactively change her name at birth. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 01:03, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Just adding my own tuppence worth regarding accurate birth records.

The records at ancestry.com are not the most accurate on line, one reason being the fact that they are most often second, third or even more generations away from a document which was itself a transcript of the original.

Genealogists will attest to the fact that even the most reliable records from the General Records Office are liable to error.

But having said that, errors on the actual GRO page entries are not so common as those on other online sources because they are only first generation transcripts. The images of the actual pages from the GRO index are freely available to view at www.freebmd.org.uk. The entries are grouped together by the quarter end in which they were recorded, so the actual birth date is not established by them.

But here, for example and just for the record, is what is included on the image 1945B3-M-0339 includes:

Birth registered in July, August and September 1945

Mironoff, Helen L.

Mother's maiden name: Rogers

District of Register: Hammersmith.

Volume 1a, page 353

JH49S (talk) 05:07, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's what I said, Helen Mironoff. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 03:06, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Awards and nominations

someone has added partial details of Helen's award history. This is far from complete and gives a distorted view of her achievements. Possibly someone expand on them, or else delete all setails? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.74.10.18 (talk) 20:31, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

You can always do this yourself. TheRetroGuy (talk) 20:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

The awards section in the Mirren article is only intended to be a brief summary and overview. The main article for her nominations and awards is at List of awards and nominations received by Helen Mirren. 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 21:19, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)TheRetroGuy is correct but before we expand the section too much be aware that the details of the numerous awards that she has won are here List of awards and nominations received by Helen Mirren and there is a link to that page in the awards section. And my thanks to the ever vigilant 21st CG for getting this here before I could MarnetteD | Talk 21:21, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I hadn't checked that, so wonder now, what's this guy's problem? He is, of course, free to be bold, but if the information is contained elsewhere then there seems little point in having the whole lot twice. TheRetroGuy (talk) 21:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Stage career breakthrough

This subheading is misleading and likely reflects an overall US bias to the article (and an assumption that actors make their names first in movies before treading the boards). It seems to be prompted by her Broadway debut in 1995. In fact, her reputation in Britain was originally built as a stage actress and her "stage career breakthrough" can be dated as early as 1965 when she first impressed London critics with her Cleopatra.Gildasderhuys (talk) 19:06, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Actor/actress

(Copied here from discussion page of User:DrWho75 for continuity) Yes actress is a word that describes a female actor. But actor is equally acceptable. If fact many groups and female actors now consider actress to be sexist and demeaning. Mirren is one such. Read the lead paragraph in the article actor and it becomes self explanatory. In instances where the subject has expressed a such a strong feeling in the matter (and Mirren is by no means alone in this) it is insulting for any editor to insist on a naming protocol that is NOT laid down anywhere on wiki. I will leave it to your conscience as to whether you decide to revert your own edit, I would not wish to start an edit war over the matter. 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 00:53, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Note; There is a discussion on this topic taking place at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies)#Gender Neutral for anyone who wishes to participate. 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 14:14, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Of course it's not "equally acceptable." That is nonsense. And it is not "insulting" for this article to refer to her as an "actress." If she called herself a robot, would we have to refer to her as such? It has always astonished me that the very same people (women) who insist that that "actress" is demeaning are precisely those who have to rush off to their "Goddess worship" retreats. Should we also start referring to women as "men"? Women is sexist, you know.

Thanks for the input. It is always interesting that there is a need to use insulting and demeaning language to claim that something isn't insulting and demeaning. It is also interesting when comments come from one with only a smattering of edits and who has never edited in this part of wikipedia before. Please note that per Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Gender-neutral language.5BR.5D and Wikipedia:Gender-neutral language wikiguidelines are being followed in this situation. MarnetteD | Talk 20:08, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

In addition it is there is no question that it is "equally acceptable" for a number of people. As to your belief that we should compare apples to oranges I am sure that if she did ask to be called a robot you would insist that she be called a robotess. As to your last assertion we are all humans (I know that there are no reliable sources for this but I like to think that it is so) everything else is gender specific. MarnetteD | Talk 23:56, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Do we have a citation for her "strong feeling in the matter"? And is there an explanation as to why, despite this strong feeling, she is still happy to be nominated for Oscar etc awards titled "Best Actress"? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:16, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jack. It is nice to see your name again. I feel that we are following the wikipolicies that I added the links to. Thus, why would a source be needed for the first question. I can say that she mentions it in her book In the Frame: My Life in Words and Pictures though I don't have it at hand to give you a specific spot. Conversely, we could require a source that confirms that she prefers the gender specific term. As to the second, as you may well know, to get along in a given profession, putting up with prejudice that you disagree with is just a part of life's rich tapestry. Just look at her history with the DBE. MarnetteD | Talk 20:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I was going to change actor to actress, but then I "read the note" so I decided not to. I then came to this page and saw the discussion. I suppose there are a lot of male/female distinction words that have fallen out of use over the years, and actor/actress may be another. For example, author/authoress, poet/poetess, jew/jewess, and negro/negress were all once very common and not considered demeaning at all, but one rarely sees them anymore. John Paul Parks (talk) 07:33, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Those examples are rarely the male/female distinction that you describe them as, and they never were. One term can be applied to people of either gender, the other term is for women only. You may as well add human/woman to the list :)
There are very few terms that refer exclusively to men -- SteveCrook (talk) 09:21, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Greenstuff, is there evidence that she considers the word "actress" to be "sexist and demeaning"? I thought she took a more sensible view. She happily uses the word in her autobiography, e.g. "Later my dad was very proud of my achievements as an actress" (p24) or "I realised what a wonderful experience it was going to be to hear those actresses doing their thing..." (p216).Gildasderhuys (talk) 14:57, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Pictures of awards

As a rule we have not added pictures of awards to biography articles. The one that is being added to this article is a generic pic of one specific award. It would seem to be WP:POV to add this one as though it was somehow more important than any others that she has won. On the other hand if we start to add a pic of an Oscar, Bafta and any of the other numerous awards that she has was then we will soon have a page cluttered with photos that are not relevant to the article. A wikilink to an article about the award should suffice for any readers that are interested in seeing what it look like. MarnetteD | Talk 00:47, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you 'MarnetteD', the image of the award doesn't need to be shown in the biography article, unless it is the person's own award, but even then it's of dubious use. If someone wants to see what the award looks like then they can click on the link to the article about the award -- SteveCrook (talk) 08:52, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Source at ancestry.com

Well, it doesn't work. If you give a source on a database, you have to give exact instructions on how to get there - otherwise the source information is totally useless.--Nedergard (talk) 17:25, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Early TV movie

I didn't notice any reference to an early (approx. 1968) British TV mystery movie entitled "Kiss, Kiss, Kill, Kill". I heartily urge Helen Mirren fans to find a copy and view it. It's a real tour de force for Ms. Mirren (she must have only been in her 20s when she made this movie). --Freddiwithanaj (talk) 22:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

There is also no mention of her magnificent turn as Valerie Marneffe in the 1971 Masterpiece Theatre production of de Balzalc's Cousine Bette. This was one of Helen Mirren's more notable early roles which also introduced her to Americans. Speaking for myself, I have been smitten with her acting prowess ever since. This production of Cousine Bette is far superior to the more recent feature film starring Jessica Lange. The 1971 Masterpiece Theatre version of Cousine Bette is now available on DVD. I urge all Helen Mirren fans to rent or purchase this. You will not be disappointed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vermont57 (talk • contribs) 13:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, her 1981 work in E. O'Brien's "Mrs. Reinhardt" is missing.173.48.171.20 (talk) 21:08, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Queens Elizabeth in the intro?

That's definitely wrong. Queen is describing Elizabeth, Elizabeth isn't describing Queen. Elizabeth is the noun, and thus should be the word pluralized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.87.12.112 (talk) 05:02, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Forced to Accept "Best Actress" Oscar

Who can forget Helen Mirran's rousing speech as she stood on that podium, men with guns behind her to force her to accept the award, decrying the fact that the Oscar for Best Actress has the word "Actress" in the title. If only there had been some way for her to refuse the award but we know from history that NO ONE has EVER refused an Oscar. It's simply not allowed. They'll kill you first and then have some B lister accept it on your behalf posthumously. What a moment.--Dr who1975 (talk) 10:27, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

You have edited here long enough to know that new threads belong at the bottom of the page. Also per WP:BRD discussion occurs before restoring and edit that has been removed. Aside from the WP:POINT nature of your edit you will want to read the Merriam-Webster definition here [4] especially its 1st example of usage in a sentence "my sister went to drama school to become an actor" and the writing style guide here. This is also covered by MOS:GNL and Wikipedia:Gender-neutral language. As to your edit summary I have had this article on my watchlist for over nine year and the mention of the Academy Award has never been removed. Thus, your edit is not needed. BTW Oscars have been refused in the past. MarnetteD|Talk 16:45, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Couple of things. 1. I forgot that comments go at the bottom. Not everyone lives on wikipedia all the time. People forget things. I apologize for my error... it was unintentional. 2. Actually... the Oscar mention has been removed at least once in the last 9 years. I could go back and find it for you if you like.--Dr who1975 (talk) 15:06, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I really don't see the point of making an issue out of this. So she accepted an Oscar for Best Female Actress, but prefers to call herself an actor. Hardly the scandal of the century, is it? I would say consensus would be against including this observation. We're not a tabloid, and I'm not even sure they'd be that bothered. This is Paul (talk) 15:25, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your input TiP. D, even if it was removed once your note (full of snark and WP:POINT) is not needed. Hidden notes are to help with repeated changes to an article not a one-off from last decade. Since you are subject to forgetting WikiPolicy you will want to read WP:BRD and WP:EW. MarnetteD|Talk 17:56, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Well you got me.... I really disagree with calling her an Actor. Besides me opinion that it makes it sound like she's ashamed of being a woman.... the bigger point is her opinion, as with mine just stated... is IRRELEVENT to the wording of her wikipedia page. I mean, what if I (hypothetically) asked Charles Manson how he felt about the wording on his wikipedia page and he said (hypothetically) that he didn't murder anyone, he simply "liberated them from this mortal coil" and he was religious leader not a cult leader? Would we listen to Charles Manson in that case? Where is the wikipedia rule or guideline that says the subject of an article's opinion must be taken into account when deciding the wording of their article? If you find snark in my comments.... it's to drive home a point that this is a terrible precedent for wikipedia to set. It's directed at the idea... not any particular person.--Dr who1975 (talk) 19:05, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Once again you have not read any of the items they have linked to as they cover the problems with you prejudice. Actor does not mean male it means person who acts and that can be a male or female and if you can't grasp that then there is nothing that anyone can do for you. MarnetteD|Talk 19:53, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Forgot to mention that the terms like authoress, poetess and comedienne were also gender specific terms. They have fallen by the wayside and been replaced by gender neutral terminology. The world and Wikipedia have survived the non-upheaval. MarnetteD|Talk 19:56, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Also forgot to mention that your post today shows that your edit was NOT trying to keep the AA item from being removed from the lede. It was a WP:POINT item which is what was mentioned right from the start. MarnetteD|Talk 20:31, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

You're questioning my motives. Nothing that I said above precludes my honesty in being worried about this. That is an assumption on your part and I would apreciate if you did not make such assumptions.--Dr who1975 (talk) 16:30, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Just because you think this is only about my ego and trying to make a point doesn't make it true. You don't like my method's, granted... but there is something real I'm trying to accomplish here and there is also a real concern associated with it... I put that language in there for a reason, the best actress language HAS indeed been removed in the past.--Dr who1975 (talk) 16:33, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

You still haven;t answered my question... Where is the wikipedia rule or guideline that says the subject of an article's opinion must be taken into account when deciding the wording of their article?--Dr who1975 (talk) 16:35, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it's a matter of taking her point of view into account, more that we are using a gender neutral description that she happens to favour. I've no doubt the word actress will become obsolete in time. The same debate occurred over Miranda Hart's use of the word comedienne to describe herself, something which is rarely used now. Many of these terms have gone out of fashion over the years. Consider the female specific titles in the police force that are no longer used (WPC, WDC, etc), and phrases such as authoress and poetess mentioned above. But in any case, IMHO, I think it's time for you to move on from this little bugbear of yours and do something a bit more constructive. This is Paul (talk) 16:51, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I gave all the links necessary (and, thus, answered your question) in my post of June 20th. The fact that you have not read or acknowledged them - well there is little more that I can do for you. The thing that you are trying to "prevent" (ie gender neutral terminology being used for men and women} has already happened. Oh, and an item removed once years ago is not a reason for adding a WP:POINTy message. MarnetteD|Talk 17:36, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Uht OH... if you guys really believe in this stuff you'll have to do something about Category:Lesbian actresses ... apparently there were battles to move it to actors that failed. I don't understand. Don't the people who run that category see how bad a term that is like all of you do?--Dr who1975 (talk) 01:02, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Uh oh. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as well as the fact that categories deal with different things differently. Also you still have obviously not read this. MarnetteD|Talk 01:30, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

As for no-one ever refusing an Oscar, what about Marlon Brando and George C. Scott, for starters?

Of course, we cannot apply what we're saying above, about the meaning of the word "actor", to the Oscar categories, since that would then mean that all actors (including women) would be eligible for Best Actor, but only female actors would be eligible for Best Actress, and that would be giving women two bites at the cherry (ouch!). So, we have the situation where we call Mirren an actor who accepted a Best Actress award. No big deal. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 02:39, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm confused Jack of Oz... you accept the fact that people have refused oscars but you don't think Helen Mirren could have done it if she really beleived in her convictions?--Dr who1975 (talk) 03:19, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Huh? Where and when did I ever say that? If I did think that, I'd certainly not state it here, because that would be engaging in the exchange of personal opinions about Helen Mirren, and that is NOT what this talk page is for. It's for improving the Wikipedia article on Helen Mirren. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 03:29, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

MarnetteD have you read this? It appears to be from the same website.--Dr who1975 (talk) 03:24, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 March 2016

She is an actress. 2.245.114.5 (talk) 19:04, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

 Not done. Mirren regards herself as an actor, and the article should reflect that. Please read the corresponding note on this issue before wasting everybody's time by posting requests like this again. This is Paul (talk) 19:09, 10 March 2016 (UTC)