Talk:Kerima (actress)

Ethnicity

There is one source that says she was not really Algerian at all. Rather, she was French and living in Paris when "discovered". The Algerian background was just to make her seem more exotic. This should be researched further and reflected in the article. MB (talk) 03:34, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

see this: http://esmma.free.fr/mde4/kerima.htm

Thank you MB for your efforts. However, we should separate any drive to make her more exotic from our own report. We can't claim there's confusion or "entrenched beliefs" ourselves (even if we cite evidence supporting that claim), that would be WP:OR. We can, however, claim this if we find sources that say it themselves because then we are merely reporting what others claim (which is what Wikipedia is about). For example - the sentence

The Algerian background is so thoroughly entrenched that one blog cites her as rare "evidence of north African stars in Hollywood during the 1950s."

is okay Y if the source is saying this, pointing to those who mistakenly believe she's algerian (our ref is to the "entrenched" claim)
is not okay N if we are the ones saying this, pointing to those who mistakenly believe she's algerian (our ref is to the "entrenched" belief)

If all we can find are conflicting sources, then all we should do is reach consensus on what sources to use, and not use those other sources. I'll hold off my own editing for a couple of days to give you time to make the necessary edits yourself as a courtesy. Regards CapnZapp (talk) 12:45, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

CapnZapp, let me clarify.

She was reported as being Algerian in 1951/52 when her first film was being publicized. Sources from that time frame say this. That was published in newspapers and magazines at the time. With the advent of the internet and the compilation of various database (e.g. IMDB), the Algerian background was propagated further. There really wasn't much mention of her anywhere in the intervening decades as she apparently did little work during the 60's and completely retired by 1972. Then in 2006, a French journalist thought the story was suspicious: "remain cautious on the Internet it is enough that someone writes nonsense that everyone follows suit". He then looked for birth announcements in Algeria and finally received word from Guy Hamilton that she is French and her Algerian birth was fabricated. This was documented separately in a 2003 book (ref 6) which also cited another interview with Guy Hamilton.

So I don't think we have "conflicting" sources. There are original sources that reported what they were told in 1951. Many other sources that kept repeating that story. And then newer sources (50+ years later) that say the original story was concocted for publicity. I think it is clear we should heed the new sources which have no self-interest in her not being Algerian, and still not ignore the older sources that said she was Algerian - but document why she was falsely described.

I tried to just document all this objectively. I didn't claim "confusion" or "entrenched beliefs" myself, but attribute that to (ref 1) (Although I was confused myself at first because an internet search typically turns up Algerian more than French and you really need to dig to find the reports that she is really French).

Regarding this sentence: The Algerian background is so thoroughly entrenched that one blog cites her as rare "evidence of north African stars in Hollywood during the 1950s.", (ref 1) talks about "nonsense being repeated" (of course regarding her ancestry) and (ref 2) is a blog calling her North African. I was trying to tie the two together, documenting that (ref 2) is an example of the phony story being repeated as (ref 1) says is happening.

So, if you still think there is any WP:OR I would like to work with you to fix it but I'm not certain anything needs to change.MB (talk) 04:24, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. Since I don't know any french that mislead me into believing you were just a good-faith editor that got it wrong. I couldn't understand that you were working from the research done by this french journalist. It appeared to me you were the one stating these facts. Now, I take your word you HAVE referenced that journo. I now understand that you intend that whole second paragraph to provide examples of people getting it wrong, rather than providing evidence to support the claim "people are getting it wrong". Let me see if I can make this more clear for the benefit of non-french-speakers like myself. CapnZapp (talk) 10:30, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Okay done. I hope you will see that I have removed none of your sources. I have merely structured the Entnicity section into three paragraphs: the first is about setting up the mainstream claim "she's algerian". The second is about debunking that claim. And all statements about various other personas is in the third, after establishing that she actually isn't algerian.

Note how in particular the sentence discussed above has been removed. The blog you cite is still there, but now it is (hopefully) evident it's just a follow-up example illustrating the point "people believe she's algerian" rather than, as discussed previously, "the belief she's algerian is widespread but wrong". Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 10:39, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Feel free to improve further. CapnZapp (talk) 10:54, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

The plot thickens....

It seems that when she married Hamilton in Kensington in 1964, her name was recorded as "Yvette K Revidis" - the "K" presumably for "Kerima." Whether "Yvette" is her real first - or middle - name is anybody's guess. Nick Cooper (talk) 12:20, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I see that Canadian Paul has taken issue with the reference to the subject's 1964 marriage registration. I would note that if FreeBMD were not a usable source, we would not have a template for it. Certainly it is undeniable that the registration in question does relate to the subject of this page, and indeed is a very pertinent inclusion given the ambiguity about the her origins and "real" name. Nick Cooper (talk) 11:25, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

I have posted at WP:BLPN, as I believe that this discussion has broader relevance. Please do bring your perspective there. Canadian Paul 18:12, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

• The issues is now one of consensus. The debate remains here on its Talk Page. All interested parties should be directed from the Noticeboard to here; not the other way around. Maineartists (talk) 18:25, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

[Copying from other discussion on my talk page]: The third-party sources already said she married Alexis Revidis in 1953, so the fact that her last name was Revidis is not new or speculation. There was no prior mention of "Yvette" as a first name. While you are technically correct on that, I'm not sure that saying she used this first name in 1964 needs to be protected as an issue of privacy. The fact that she married George Hamilton and lived in Andratx for decades tells far more about how she could be tracked down. MB 18:50, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

I would note that UK marriage registrations are public documents, so including the subject's given forename when she married Hamilton is not "revealing" anything that can be regarded as "secret" or "private." Nick Cooper (talk) 21:36, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

I see arguments made that are simply irrelevant*. Have everyone really read WP:BLPPRIMARY? It has this to say:

Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses.

How isn't this clear as day? Find a regular 3PP source for the data in the 1PP source (and of course, reach consensus it's needed for the article and so on, as per usual) or don't publish her first name. Simple.

"if FreeBMD were not a usable source, we would not have a template for it" N Just because we have a template doesn't mean we gave you free rein in using it ;-)

"All interested parties should be directed from the Noticeboard to here; not the other way around." N every editor is free to bring issues to the noticeboard - please focus on the matter at hand rather than controlling other editors. Thank you

"I'm not sure that saying she used this first name in 1964 needs to be protected as an issue of privacy" N no grounds to disregard policy

"I would note that UK marriage registrations are public documents" N which is exactly the kind of source policy advises extreme caution against using!

Hope this clears things up, cheers CapnZapp (talk) 11:44, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

This smacks of gaming the system for the sake of it. It seems somewhat bizarre that the page is full of assertions about her that are demonstrably false, yet issue is being taken with one detail that is essentially true. We are, after all, dealing with a person whose origins are already acknowledged as being ambiguous on a number of levels, and while the page asserts her "real name" was "Miriam Charrière," there is still doubt expressed about that. I would also note that her name at marriage is already recorded elsewhere, which includes the exact date. Nick Cooper (talk) 12:36, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

I encourage you and everyone to focus on those "demonstrably false" assertations. Just because nobody has caught them yet doesn't mean they should stay. Best regards, CapnZapp (talk) 15:04, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

What I mean is that we include the various false claims that she is a nationality other than French, which illustrates the ambiguity of her origin, notwithstanding the fact that her (now late) husband confirmed that she is French. We acknowledge that it was intiially claimed that she is Algerian, but also that, "she has also been described as 'a beautiful Pakistani actress', as well as Italian, Indonesian, and Tunisian," as well as the conflicting accounts that she was eitehr a medical student, or a jewellery seller. Nick Cooper (talk) 15:17, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Whoa - those are not claims *we* make. Please differentiate between us reporting on historical facts (such as her being advertised as Algerian) and us claiming she's Algerian (or whatever). Just look at the previos talk section for how that got me tripped up, before everything fell into place. Regards CapnZapp (talk) 15:37, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

No, we don't make the claims, but we do report them, even though they are obviously false. Meanwhile, you and one other editor are objecting to the inclusion something that is provably 100% true, i.e. that she gave her forename as "Yvette" when she married Hamilton in 1964. We don't know whether that was her real name, or a later affectation, but clearly she did use it at the time. Nick Cooper (talk) 15:52, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Exactly. That is how it should be worded (and was worded in its original form). It is not personal opinion or against policy to include content from what is reliably sourced (although this source: prabook is not; one does not "record" but "enter" information and is as reliable as Facebook - which it is linked to as a sign in option). If it is presented correctly: "When they married in 1964, her name was given as "Yvette K Revidis" ...", this in no way implies it was her real, birth name, given name, etc; just what she put down on the marriage certificate. We're starting to drift from the original post (started due to an edit war on content) with the above encouragement to focus on separate "demonstrably false" assertations. Is it possible to simply set in motion a vote to either re-instate (or not) the original content? I'm sure I am wrong in all of this, so I now welcome red X marks with corrections. Best, Maineartists (talk) 16:20, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Since the statement was only stating the name she used on the marriage certificate, with no other judgement, there is no issue how it is worded, right? The only issue is whether using this information is improper per WP:BLPPRIMARY. The guidance there is somewhat ambiguous. It says DO NOT use public documents, and at the same time it says to use extreme caution in using primary sources. I read this section as saying to respect privacy and do not use information they are forced to divulge in government documents but would not want to become publicly available. The obvious example is the former porn star who does not want their real name to be known as that would put their present job as an elementary school teacher in jeopardy. I fail to see an issue in this article with saying she called herself Yvette in 1964. MB 18:50, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Nick Cooper: No and no. You're mixing things up here, and my advice is to hold off contentious edits until you have a better understanding of how Wikipedia works. Whether a claim is false or not is entirely irrelevant. A claim such as "she's Algerian" can be a complete falsehood and still be worth including for historical reasons - its veracity doesn't even enter the equation. While a claim such as "she's called Yvette" might well be entirely non-notable, despite being completely true. Then you got it wrong about my reasons for entering the discussion: an edit like that needs to be discussed, especially as the relevant policy says "extreme caution". My objection is with your take, that a true fact should be uncontroversial to add. That's not at all how Wikipedia works, and all I will do here is (again) encourage you to get up to speed before engaging further. What I have done here is a) ensured the issue was taken to the talk page, and b) made sure everyone is clear on the relevant policy. Whether her first name is a relevant addition to the page is a different issue entirely. And oh, to be absolutely clear - this isn't an invitation to discuss or question Wikipedia workings, so our discussion ends here. CapnZapp (talk) 22:09, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Considering I've been editing Wikipedia for almost eleven years - and 18 months more than you - I would suggest that you tone down the condescension. Nick Cooper (talk) 10:46, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

MB: To me it's clear: we are not exercising "extreme caution" if we use a primary public data source for something as trivial as a first name. I'd say the added value of the proposed inclusion to the article quality is negligible. CapnZapp (talk) 22:09, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

I pretty much agree with everything that CapnZapp has said here and only want to add that it's not up to determine how using primary sources to reveal previously unreported information could be harmful. The fact that it could be harmful in ways we aren't thinking of is exactly the reason that WP:BLPPRIMARY exists. I don't see the ambiguity that policy. Is it extreme to consider that her name might somehow be harmful? Maybe, but the policy suggests using extreme caution. The word "not" in "do not use public records that include personal details" is bolded and italicized. The second paragraph clarifies that exceptions should focus on cases where the primary sources augment secondary information that may not be entirely clear in the latter. It's pretty clear that the policy doesn't want anything sourced solely from primary sources, which is what is happening here. Canadian Paul 08:14, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Really? You think there's no "added value" in the case of someone who was required to adopt a stage name, and for whom a birth name has been suggested, but which is clearly still doubt? Nick Cooper (talk) 10:53, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

• I oppose using a/this primary public data source for detailing some unreported personal details about this person. WP:BLPPRIMARY is clear. Govindaharihari (talk) 18:51, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

According to Guy Hamilton's recemtly published entry in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography "...on 20 August 1964 he married the French actress Yvette Kerima Revidis, née Barousse, stage name Kerima (b. 1925), daughter of Jean Raymond Barousse, industrialist." The marriage certificate is cited as a source. Crisso (talk) 15:38, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. If you can confirm this page states this, feel free to edit the article. Why? Because now you have provided a reliable secondary source. (What sources ODNB use are of little importance to us. BLP's cautions against using primary sources, and ODNB isn't one. Waiting until reliable secondary sources use primary sources instead of us using them ourselves is ***exactly*** what Wikipedia is all about) CapnZapp (talk) 09:32, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Evidently there is no longer any paywall:

"On 21 November 1953 he married the English actress Naomi Adelaide Kathleen Freeman, known professionally as Naomi Chance (1927–2003), daughter of George Bovet Freeman, colonial official. This marriage ended in divorce, and on 20 August 1964 he married the French actress Yvette Kerima Revidis, née Barousse, stage name Kerima (b. 1925), daughter of Jean Raymond Barousse, industrialist. They had met on the third Reed film, in which she played the female lead."

— McFarlane, B. (2020, January 09). Hamilton, (Mervyn Ian) Guy (1922–2016), film director. Oxford Dictionary of National Biography.

CapnZapp (talk) 16:33, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Status

I just noticed the Telegraph's obit on Guy Hamilton says she died before him: [1] I wonder if it is possible her death might have escaped notice? I can find no sources that verify her as living (or dead) after 2016. CapnZapp (talk) 14:01, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Now that is interesting, good spot @CapnZapp:! The original obituary said that she had survived him. To prove I'm not going crazy, here is the original version of his obituary from 2016. I think it's safe to change her lede to "(born February 10, 1925, date of death unknown)" or "(February 10, 1925 – before April 2016)". I'm due to ping the Telegraph obituaries team later, as I hope they'll want to cover Patricia Marmont, who died off radar in London in December. I will raise this as well to ask how they found out about Kerima's death and see if they have any further information (a date or location etc.). I'll report back once they respond. In the meantime, I think it's reasonable to add her death to the page using the Hamilton obituary as a source seeing as there seems to be nothing in existence which contradicts this. Thanks --Jkaharper (talk) 14:35, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

If it's all the same to you, I would rather hold off until we have more solid info than a single reference (that isn't even chiefly about her). Your info is interesting though. Regards CapnZapp (talk) 15:39, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'm indifferent at the moment. I've contacted the Telegraph. Maybe they can provide more insight. Thanks --Jkaharper (talk) 15:55, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I had a look at the Wayback captures. The 21 April capture says she predeceased him [2] then the 23 April capture says she survived him [3] then the 5 May capture again says she predeceased him [4]. Neither the Guardian nor the AP obit says anything about his wife's then-current status. CapnZapp (talk) 15:56, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

All very confusing. Seems that she was quite an elusive person in life given her prominence. Hopefully we can resolve this soon. Tagging @Canadian Paul: and @Connormah: into this too, who are very good at helping to resolve these scenarios. I note that CP has already waded in to the conversation above too. --Jkaharper (talk) 16:09, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Given all this, I would think that PLP would be the best category for now, given the uncertainty? I'm usually for being on the safe side and keeping the living people category, which has extra protections, and it's not likely she'd be the only deceased person in the living people category on Wikipedia. In this case, however, our lone reference (for this matter) can't make up its mind, so that seems like a reasonable case for PLP. As a side note, I had completely forgotten that I had been around these parts earlier... Canadian Paul 05:39, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

This is the response I have received from the Telegraph team. Not entirely clear though they believe someone was in touch with people on the ground in Majorca who knew them:

"Dear James, I wasn't around in 2016, and memories on the desk are a little hazy; our records don't go back quite far enough to indicate who wrote the piece. But the editor Andrew Brown thinks he remembers that we were in touch with people in Majorca who knew Hamilton, one of whom told us that Kerima had died. It's odd, as everything I can see online (including her Wiki page) suggests that she's not dead. I'm afraid I can't be of any more help than that - apologies. If anything else comes up I'll certainly let you know." --Jkaharper (talk) 18:48, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I would also lean towards the PLP category per CP's comments above, though unless there is a public obituary somewhere on a Spanish website, it seems that finding anything with regard to that will be tough. Connormah (talk) 06:05, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I am afraid I have no clue as to the availability of online death records in Spain. CapnZapp (talk) 10:02, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I won't object to inclusion in WP:PLP. Not because I'm convinced by this off-hand remark in the Telegraph Hamilton obit, but because AFAIK there has been no documentation about the living status of the article subject at all in the last decade. The Independent interview "Guy Hamilton: Larks and lady-killers" is the latest I can find where somebody asserts Kerima was alive: "Next to him, perched on a padded barstool, is Mrs Hamilton – better known as Kerima", and it was apparently conducted in 2002. (We do not have to wait until 2023 - the 2013 date the web page currently sports cannot be correct; I can find reviews of the The Colditz Story / Warner British War Collection from ~2005) The cut-off date in this particular case is 2006 - if no news on an article subject born in 1925 was published since, it would mean she would qualify for WP:PLP when she could be safely counted as having reached 90 years of age in 2016. CapnZapp (talk) 09:46, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks all for your input. I've moved her to PLP seeing as there was no disagreement. @CapnZapp:, to answer your question – no the Spanish records are not available online like England and Wales, Scotland and France, sadly. This has caused a lot of problems up until now, as some people retire there then simply die off radar (e.g. recently solved case Dusty Anderson). The answer will probably come about before her mandatory PLP point in 2026. There's much more of an interest in these limbo bios on here now than there was ten years ago and many of them are being solved one way or another. Thanks again --Jkaharper (talk) 12:45, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Just to note, googling "necrológicas negulesco" finds the source you guys used for Dusty Anderson, so it isn't that online searches are entirely hopeless for Spain. (I tried various forms of "necrológicas hamilton" with no luck; maybe what goes for Marbella is different from Palma de Mallorca?) CapnZapp (talk) 15:12, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

As a very minor note, I don't understand the "mandatory PLP point in 2026" bit. AFAIK the next cut-off date is in 2040, when this article will be moved into CAT:YDM per WP:BDP. Am I wrong? CapnZapp (talk) 15:19, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake. She would be 96 if still alive now. I was thinking she'd be 86 for some reason (I'm not a morning person!). Yes, 90+ with no sources in a decade verifying they're alive = PLP. 110+ (some users go up to 115 or further, which I think is unnecessary) is "Year/date of death missing" category as you said. --Jkaharper (talk) 16:16, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Cheers. (Btw, the policy specifies 115 years. Possibly a recent change?) CapnZapp (talk) 17:10, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Not sure. 115 is silly. Supercentenarians are closely monitored and there are annual reports produced in most MEDCs with names and DOBs of citizens 107+. The idea a person of prominence could reach 110 without it going noticed is very unrealistic. It's never happened before. --Jkaharper (talk) 17:29, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I really have no opinion. I just wanted to check I got it right; that you weren't maybe talking about some obscure exception to the policy. CapnZapp (talk) 20:12, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I think it may be worth trying to contact Brian McFarlane on this issue as he authored Guy Hamilton's 2020 ODNB article. It seems to be the most recently researched and published article out there and, although he doesn't specifically state in the article whether she outlived Hamilton or not, he'd probably have as just good an idea as to Kerima's status any of the other obit authors mentioned. Crisso (talk) 21:02, 30 April 2021 (UTC)