Talk:Nicole Kidman/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

New controversy

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

What about Category:Former_Scientologists

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

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

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

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

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

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

Added 'Before I Go to Sleep'

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

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

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

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

Nationality

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

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

Awards and nominations

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

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

Removed Award

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

Birth name

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

She is an Australian-American actress

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

former scientologist

Shouldn't Kidman be added to Category:Former Scientologists? The Huffington Post reports that she was a member during her marriage to Tom Cruise.[4] 147.194.30.138 (talk) 17:36, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Nicole Kidman

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Nicole Kidman's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "aus":

  • From Nicole Kidman discography: For peak positions of Kidman's singles in Australia, use the australian-charts.com links depending on a release.
    • "Australia - "Come What May" with Ewan McGregor". ARIA Charts. ARIA. australian-charts.com. Retrieved June 30, 2014.
    • "Australia - "Somethin' Stupid" with Robbie Williams". ARIA Charts. ARIA. australian-charts.com. Retrieved June 30, 2014.
  • From Hamas: "Hamas's Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades". Government of Australoia. Retrieved August 1, 2011.

Reference named "uk":

Reference named "ss":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 12:03, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Nicole Kidman. 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 07:33, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Infobox photo

A few hours ago, Nymf removed the modified version of the current infobox photo I added, saying it was bluish and blurry (edit summary read, "all blurred, blue tint"). I looked at the photo on three different screens: my computer screen, my tablet, and my phone. None of them looked bluish or blurry. The retouched photo was softened slightly, there was a bit of color enhancement, some noise removal, and a bit of midtone added. I see none of what Nymf is claiming. The current photo, to me, looks less flattering than the modified version with shininess on her face, her skin color washed out a bit, and the focus a bit too "harsh", in my opinion. I asked Nymf to check their monitor screen, the response I got in the edit summary when the photo was reverted out again was, "Graphic designer, so nothing wrong with my monitor".

I'd appreciate others' opinions. Photo comparisons are below.

Current: Retouched:

-- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:37, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Honestly, it looks too photoshopped and yes it looks a bit blurry and has a blue tint..anyways, i have fixed the current image without making it look odd...remember, nicole has a 'milky' skin tone, she isn't pink..--Stemoc 01:49, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Well...dammit. :-) -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:04, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Stemoc. Looks great. I was going to upload an edit myself to show what I meant, but looks like there is no need now. Nymf (talk) 06:44, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Nicole about Scientology?

The "Religious and political views" section says that Kidman "stated that she did not want their children raised as Scientologists," citing an article from the New York Post. However, the actual NYP article merely says, "Sources say she does not want the children...raised according to the teachings and methods of the controversial religion." So as far as I can tell there is no evidence that she ever made any such statement.124.171.117.17 (talk) 03:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Nicole Kidman. 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 12:34, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Star photo

Nicole Kidman has a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame. Yet what do we see a photo of? Her star on the Swedish Walk of Fame! What's that about? It looks distinctly odd. aldiboronti (talk) 11:49, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Name at birth

I bumped into this interview with Kidman and Meryl Streep. Should any of this be included in her biography? [5] Meryl Streep and Nicole Kidman discuss their birth names - The Graham Norton Show: Episode 3. I did not enter it since I did not work on the article, so perhaps someone else can include it if it has any merit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leahtwosaints (talk) 14:24, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 18 external links on Nicole Kidman. 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) 15:25, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Serial commas in Australian English

You clearly have no idea of editing policies regarding different forms of English or the MOS on serial commas if you think you can just "add" a serial comma it because it's your preference after the article had been restored to the longstanding punctuation. You are being disruptive. Yahboo (talk) 14:27, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

@Yahboo: I don't generally care either way but I did do a search in the article for ", and" and found 38 usages and every place I checked used the serial comma correctly. Established style in the article is to use the serial comma. Consistency is required. The person who originally added it was correct per established style in the article. There was no justification for undoing that correction. Geraldo Perez (talk) 14:33, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
See MOS:SERIAL which states Editors may use either convention so long as each article is internally consistent;. Geraldo Perez (talk) 14:36, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
It is in fact an Australian English punctuation style issue as you will see from WP's Serial comma article which quotes from the Australian government's official style manual, The Australian Government Publishing Service's Style Manual for Authors, Editors and Printers, in the section headed "Australian style guides opposing typical use".
"A comma is used before and, or, or etc. in a list when its omission might either give rise to ambiguity or cause the last word or phrase to be construed with a preposition in the preceding phrase. Generally, however, a comma is not used before and, or or etc. in a list."
Therefore the article should follow this Australian English punctuation style in accordance with the more relevant MOS principle on different forms of English. Yahboo (talk) 15:02, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia has its own manual of style which targets consistency of usage in each article when style choice is established. Australian usage as mentioned said generally not used but did not rule out using it at all. I did check this Australian focused article for existing usage and the serial comma is the convention in this article. If this is an issue for you, fix the entirety of the article, don't just pick and choose a single instance to focus on. I don't care what is used, and I personally strongly dislike the serial comma, but I do care about consistency. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:17, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Infobox image

I feel that this image is more suited to be an infobox image as I feel it shows her face more clearly rather than this — Preceding unsigned comment added by MuchAdoA (talk • contribs) 11:56, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

tabloid

Wikipedia is not a tabloid jornal and this artile relys far to often on what single sourses at are not at all reliable. This biogrophy is not a shining example of Wikepedia standard. I made 2 changes. Maybe if fellow editors where to each remove 2 that should not be here this could be cleaned up. Jackhammer111 (talk) 06:09, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Hokulani

Nicole Kidman's Hawaiian name is Hokulani which means “Heavenly Star”. [1] 111.94.56.254 (talk) 08:32, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Is she a model?

Not exactly sure what qualifies as a model, but she has modelled for magazines when younger, and recently has modelled for Dior and VB. Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:17, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Nicole Kidman/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Some Dude From North Carolina (talk · contribs) 02:12, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Hey, I'm going to be reviewing this article. Expect comments by the end of the week. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 02:12, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Infobox and lead

 Done
  • Be consistent in this article on the capitalization of "Goodwill ambassador".
 Done I believe I've fixed all instances of "Goodwill Ambassador" capitalization already, but if I did miss any, please do point them out. Film Enthusiast (talk) 06:16, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Early life

  • "in halls" → "in the halls"
 Done

Career

  • Several paragraph-ending sentences lack sources.
 Done
  • "which threatens" → "that threatens"
 Done
  • Shouldn't it be "with a US$16–17 million per-film price tag"?
 Done
  • "December, 11 2020" → "11 December 2020" (consistency)
 Done

Acting style and legacy

  • This section could use an expansion.
 Done I believe I've expanded this section enough already. Though I'll gladly continue to add to it if I find any more information. Film Enthusiast (talk) 07:36, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Personal life

  • Remove the comma after "Lenny Kravitz in 2003".
 Done
  • Some sentences here also lack sources.
 Done
@Some Dude From North Carolina: Could it be possible for you to specify which ones please? I can't seem to find any sentences missing sources from my end. I feel like it's all pretty much covered. But it might just be my eyes. Film Enthusiast (talk) 06:16, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
I think you got it. Forgot where exactly since my first review but I see now that it's all sourced. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 23:37, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
  • "In the beginning" → "At the beginning"
 Done

Acting credits and awards

  • This section looks good.

Discography

  • "Gold by Australian" → "Gold by the Australian"
 Done
  • "Netherlands" → "the Netherlands"
 Done
 Done I also merged citations from other sections as well. Film Enthusiast (talk) 00:21, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

References

  • Properly cite sources.
  • Several citations are missing authors/websites/dates.
 Done
  • Avoid using additional templates in citations other than "cite".
  • New York Post (#138) is not reliable per WP:NYPOST.
 Done
  • Also avoid having ".com" in the website parameters.
  • Mark references from Los Angeles Times with "|url-access=limited".
 Done
  • Mark references from The New York Times with "|url-access=limited".
  • Mark references from Time with "|url-access=limited".
  • Mark references from Vanity Fair with "|url-access=limited".

Progress

GA review
(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    c (OR):
    d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):
    b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

Overall:
Pass/Fail:

· · ·
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Coin collecting?

I just removed the following assertion from the article:

Her hobby is collecting ancient Judean coins. She frequently visits specialized auctions in order to acquire rare ancient coins from Ancient Judea.

It's not hard to find unreliable sources that repeat this assertion ([6] [7] [8]), but it seems a little suspicious that there don't seem to be any that give any further details. The sources do predate the insertion of the sentence, so it's not citogenesis. Vahurzpu (talk) 19:04, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Fear of butteflies, lepidopterophobia

She is reportedly deathly afraid of butterflies. Is this a good enough source: https://www.toronto.com/whatson-story/7148229-nicole-kidman-s-fear-of-butterflies/#:~:text=Nicole%20Kidman%20has%20a%20fear,fear%20of%20the%20flying%20insects.&text=To%20which%20the%20interviewer%20replied,high%20school%20name%20was%20'Stalky. Seven Pandas (talk) 11:10, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Heading capitalization re: WP:SECTIONHEAD

@Nightscream: I have reviewed WP:SECTIONHEAD, and I don't think it applies the same way in this case. "2016" isn't a word, it's a number. Also, "present" is part of that sentence as well, it's referencing a specific time period, therefore I don't believe it should be capitalized. The actual heading sentence referencing what the section is about would not really begin until the word "resurgence" ("Big Little Lies" is the title of a tv show, so that has to be capitalized regardless). A few other articles can be seen utilizing this, such as @Amy Adams, @Jennifer Lawrence, @Scarlett Johansson, and @Jessica Chastain. Film Enthusiast (talk) 18:21, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

@Film Enthusiast: Hi, Film Enthusiast. Thank you for the polite message on my talk page. I appreciate your desire to talk it out politely; I wish more editors would do this.
It does not matter what portion of the phrase "present" is a part of. The guideline in quesstion does not specify anything about "sentences", and indeed, "2016 - present" isn't a sentence. The guideline in question explicitly states that it follows all of the guidance for article titles. That guidance says:
Capitalize the initial letter (except in rare cases, such as eBay), but otherwise follow sentence case (Funding of UNESCO projects), not title case (Funding of UNESCO Projects), except where title case would be expected were the title to occur in ordinary prose. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization).
Nothing about "sentences". The word "present" is indeed the first non-numerical word in the heading, and thus, if you regard it as the first word, then it is capitalized. Not the one following it. This is seems rather unambiguously clear to me, and I've been adhering to that guideline in all the time I've edited here since learning it, and yes, that means that when I encounter other articles violating it, like the ones you pointed out to me, I fix them. Thank you for pointing out those other articles. Nightscream (talk) 18:57, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
@Nightscream: Understood. In that case though, shouldn't "present" be the word that is capitalized? Since it is the very first one. Because now that heading in question doesn't have any capitalization. Film Enthusiast (talk) 19:17, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
@Film Enthusiast: If you regard a number indicated by a numeral to not be a word (I did an extensive Google search on this and could not find an answer to this one way or another), then yes. However, my observation (and this may be subjective; I've been editing since 2005 so make of that what you will) is that editors usually keep the word "present" lowercased. Nightscream (talk) 19:25, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
@Nightscream: Well I personally do feel that the word "present" in this case needs to be capitalized, as all the other headings utilize a capitalization, it wouldn't seem right for the last one to suddenly not get one. Because if that were the case, then all other headings shouldn't utilize capitalization, as they all begin with a number. I for one always kept "present" lowercased, but since it's pointed out that only the first word should be capitalized, then that should be the case here. Film Enthusiast (talk) 19:45, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
@Film Enthusiast: Okay, if you want to insist that a numerically-written number is not a word, I'm not going to quibble, at least for now. If in the future it is determined that such compositions are indeed words, then we'll cross that bridge then. But if it's not a word, then the next set of characters that clearly is a word should be capitalized, and if that word is "present", then so be it. So are we in agreement? Nightscream (talk) 22:02, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
@Nightscream: Very well. Sounds good enough for now. I don't mean to sound picky over a small detail like that one, but it's worth bringing it up. There are several other articles that have yet to follow the guideline, such as @Christian Bale, @Kate Winslet, @Elizabeth Olsen. Not sure if you'd like to review those over as well. Film Enthusiast (talk) 22:13, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Picky or not, we obviously all want articles to be the best we think that can be, so either way, stuff like this is going to come up.
Just between you and I, if there was one discussion over trivial minutae I wanted nothing to do with, it was the one that happened back in 2012, regarding the Star Trek Into Darkness. Specifically, whether "into darkness" was a subtitle that should be separated from the first two words by a colon (as in Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan), or whether the entire title was a single, unbroken phrase (like Journey into Mystery). You wouldn't believe the amount of bandwidth expended by the participants in that matter. See for yourself. Or not. Me, I wouldn't go near that discussion with a ten-foot pocket protector.
And here I am thinking I was being too fussy over this. Film Enthusiast (talk) 19:22, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for mentioning those other articles. I have quite a bit on my plate right now, so if you'd like to fix 'em, I'd appreciate it. Nightscream (talk) 22:57, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
@Nightscream: Would you find it appropriate if the headings were instead modified and rearranged a different way? That way the capitalization can be kept at the beginning of the word which describes what the section is about. For example, instead of "1983-1994: Early work and breakthrough", it could say "Early work and breakthrough (1983-1994)". Film Enthusiast (talk) 19:22, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
SECTIONHEAD does not draw a distinction between how to format headings that begin with non-numerical words vs. numerical words, so if "2016" is the first word in "2016–present: Resurgence and Big Little Lies", then shouldn't the rest of the subheadings' first non-numerical words be lowercase as well (i.e., "early", "worldwide", "established", "biographical")? "2016–present: Resurgence and Big Little Lies" is simply another way of writing "Resurgence and Big Little Lies (2016–present)", so I must agree with Film Enthusiast's revert and initial point. KyleJoantalk 21:37, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
@Film Enthusiast: @KyleJoan: I'm sorry, Kyle, but I'm not sure I'm following your point. I'm not going to quibble with how the words in a heading are formatted in terms of word order -- though it should be observed that they should remain consistent in an article, and across Wikipedia. My only position here is that WP:SECTIONHEAD makes clear that the first word and proper nouns in a heading be capitalized.
And no, you don't get to do an end-run around this by saying "Well, these FA reviewers over here 'reviewed' the article and didn't say anything," since with that logic, you could toss out any policy, guideline, or MOS practice whose violation is not caught by a reivewer. Reviewers are not infallible. They may be ignorant of a particular guideline or practice (I'm constantly seeing violations of WP:CAPFRAG, WP:ITALIC, WP:SYNTH, et al every time I go down my Watchlist), or they have just missed it, the way humans do.
And no, you don't get to violate policy by citing WP:BROKE. In the first place, WP:BROKE is an essay. Not a policy, guideline or part of MOS. Moreover, that very essay flat-out encourages to make corrections to articles in the second of its three sentences:
If there is no evidence of a real problem, and fixing the "problem" would not effectively improve Wikipedia, then don't waste time and energy (yours or anybody else's) trying to fix it.
On the other hand, if something is slightly broken in a way that you care about, and fixing it improves the encyclopedia a little, then feel free to fix it. This essay should not be cited as a justification for reverting unnecessary but non-detrimental edits; doing so is not helpful and can be a sign of ownership.
So not only did you try to justify continued violation a well-established part of MOS by citing a threadbare, 89-word essay -- which is absurd on its face -- but did so when even that essay said that correcting such things is perfectly appropriate. Seriously, who did you think you were going to fool with this? I'm amazed you would actually try to pull this, especially in light of the fact that you've racked up close to 17,000 edits here since 2008, and the number of articles you state on your user page you've helped bring to GA or FA status. Nice try. Nightscream (talk) 00:54, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
@Nightscream: @KyleJoan: May I add that this is a recurring issue I have encountered with this user several times in the past. I know it's not personal as they tend to do it with many other users. But that said, KyleJoan frequently reverts edits that seem to be beneficial at times, and using the excuse that FAC reviewers didn't feel that way, therefore it's not acceptable. I don't mean to accuse anyone of anything, but I have felt these actions represent a sign of ownership, as WP:BROKE indicates, probably because they took the article to FAC status. It may not be the case, and if it's not I apologize for the accusation, but either way, I believe it's time to cease this behavior. Some reverts made are acceptable and understandable, I get it, but some others are not even necessary. As KyleJoan stated to me once, we may just have different approaches to editing, but that doesn't mean our edits aren't worthy of inclusion. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. Film Enthusiast (talk) 01:57, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
If there is a specific discussion, esp a consensus discussion, as to specific editorial disputes, like which photo to use in the Infobox, which awards are "major" awards -- that's one thing. But you can't just revert any post-FA review edit on the basis that "Oh, the FA reviewers didn't catch that, so that means it can't be changed." An FA review -- even one that leads to an article attaining FA status -- does not carry the imprimatur something being immutably carved into stone. Wikipedia is a constant work in progress, and not a project in which the content of any article ever gets permanently "locked in." Nightscream (talk) 02:03, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Since this discussion has turned into one about KyleJoan's behavior, I have opened a new discussion about capitalizations in headings on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs), so feel free to chime in there. Cheers! KyleJoantalk 08:46, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
  • "2016–present: resurgence and Big Little Lies" is the proper style, since "resurgence" does not begin the heading. The other one should be "2004–2009: established actress". We capitalize after a colon when what follows the colon forms a complete sentence. If MOS:SECTIONHEAD had intended a rule as a strange as "capitalize the first letter of the first word after a number or other symbol that begins a heading", it would state this very clearly. You are better off taking questions like this directly to the appropriate MoS page (or just reading and following MoS and obviating the dispute in the first place), rather than re-re-re-opening ancient style questions on an article-by-article basis. This question has nothing to do with Nicole Kidman and really doesn't belong on her article's talk page.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:24, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Stamp

The wiki article states that Kidman appears on an Australian stamp in character from Moulin Rouge, however the cited article for this statement says that she appears on the stamp as her character from The Hours. Which of these is correct? Axeman (talk) 18:54, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Moulin Rouge. -- Valjean (talk) 18:58, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
She appears on at least another Australian stamp. -- Valjean (talk) 19:00, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
It appears that the source is mistaken though, since their was only two versions of the stamps: one where they appear as themselves, and the other where they appear in-character, but Kidman does only appear as her character from Moulin Rouge!, not The Hours. I have found another reliable source though that does in fact confirm this, so I went ahead and used that one instead to replace the incorrect source. — Film Enthusiast✉ 19:16, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Nicole Kidman/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: FormalDude (talk · contribs) 02:50, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

I will post updates here as I complete the review, which may take up to seven days. ––FormalDude talk 02:50, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Comments

  • The article only makes use of news sources, and quite a few have no consensus on their reliability (per WP:RSP). I'd like to see some references from other sources like books. There's been a number of biographies written on Kidman, but none of them are cited here.
Could it be possible for you to specify which sources are you referring to exactly? I'm not familiar with sourcing books (I'm not sure where to access them and use the information without having to purchase them), but I can try to find better reliable sources to replace the mid-quality ones. — Film Enthusiast✉ 16:55, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
@Film Enthusiast: Specifically of concern are the sources from The Guardian, Forbes, Fox News, and HuffPost. If you can find better sources that would be helpful.
As far as citing books, it looks like you should probably have access to The Wikipedia Library. There's a number of book sources available through there. I think using a book to corroborate some of the news sources would really put the referencing in better shape. ––FormalDude talk 18:24, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Will try my best to find some books to source. Regarding the sources of concern you've brought up, should those sources be removed if no alternative options are available to replace them? Because per WP:RSPSS, The Guardian, WP:FORBES, WP:FOXNEWS, and WP:HUFFPOST, if I'm not mistaken, are considered generally reliable, as long as they don't pertain to politics and science (which is not even relevant to this article) and are not published by contributors. Would it be acceptable to retain them in any case? — Film Enthusiast✉ 19:48, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
@Film Enthusiast: Yes, it's certainly acceptable to retain them. I just struggle to see the article meeting the GA reliable sourcing criteria without a book source or two. If you search The Wikipedia Library for "Nicole Kidman" and filter by full-text and books, you'll find a number of sources. Here's a link to that search (I'm not sure if it will work for you or not so you may have to enter that search yourself). ––FormalDude talk 03:21, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 Done I struggled to find quality book sources from available ones in the Wikipedia Library, as I was looking for those that went into detail about Kidman (most of the ones I found were short and only repeated details already included in article), so I only included two books. The other two references are academic journals, though I'm hoping they're just as acceptable, as they are from well-established credible sources. — Film Enthusiast✉ 08:12, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Needs a filmography section that lists her works. Creating this also might let you take out that long sentence of her roles from the lede.
Would the 'Acting credits' section be enough, or should I expand it a bit further? — Film Enthusiast✉ 16:55, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Personally I think it should be expanded to include a list or table, that seems to be the standard. ––FormalDude talk 21:42, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 Done I added a column list mentioning a few more of her film credits, including those in the sentence you pointed out, which I now removed. — Film Enthusiast✉ 23:33, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
  • The first paragraph in the lede section is too much about her awards/accolades, normally you'd focus on their claim to notability here. Awards/accolades can prove a person's notability, but they are not the reason they're notable (they only come once a person reaches notability, after all). So focus on Kidman's claim to notability, which appears to be the significant role she's played in the film industry. Let me know if you need more specific advice.
 Done I reworked the lead sentence to describe what she is primarily notable for. — Film Enthusiast✉ 02:00, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Article needs more content on Kidman's acting style.
 Done I believe what I've added so far might be enough, though I'll continue adding to it if I find more information further on. — Film Enthusiast✉ 08:12, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 Done? I'm not sure how this works, but I gave it my best shot. Please instruct me on how to fix it if incorrect. — Film Enthusiast✉ 20:39, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
  • which earned Kidman attention due to her racy scenes - this sentence is unsourced.
minus Removed as I couldn't find a source which supported that specific statement. — Film Enthusiast✉ 19:48, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
  • While not required, I believe the Oxford comma should be used for prose lists.
Since the article utilizes Australian English, I thought the comma wouldn't be applicable here as they aren't used in Australian punctuation, but where exactly do you suggest placing it? — Film Enthusiast✉ 04:07, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Actually you're right, looks like Australian English does not use the comma. ––FormalDude talk 09:03, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Source 153 from Popsugar Celebrity is unreliable.
minus Removed and replaced with reliable source. — Film Enthusiast✉ 01:35, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Source 59 from IMDb is unreliable.
minus Removed — Film Enthusiast✉ 01:35, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Source 15, 16, 225, and 250 from Youtube are all copyright violations and need to be removed.
minus Removed and replaced with reliable sources. — Film Enthusiast✉ 01:35, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Source 252 from Discogs is unreliable.
minus Removed with accompanying content as I couldn't find a reliable source supporting the sentence. — Film Enthusiast✉ 01:35, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Review status

✓ Pass

Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()
3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Theleekycauldron (talk) 04:01, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

(
)
Kidman at the 2018 San Diego Comic-Con
Kidman at the 2018 San Diego Comic-Con

Improved to Good Article status by Film Enthusiast (talk). Self-nominated at 20:12, 30 January 2022 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
QPQ: None required.

Overall: First of all, I can't believe Nicole Kidman's page is just now ending up on DYK. Second of all, nice job! Recent GA is long enough, well sourced and neutral. Hook is cited and interesting, and there's no copyvio. Pic is free, looks good and is in the article. This looks like the nominator's first DYK nom, so qpq isn't needed. This one's all good! BuySomeApples (talk) 02:11, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

To T:DYK/P2

Citizenship

Instead of "American-born Australian", shouldn't the lead say "American-Australian", as Kidman holds citizenship in both countries and was born in America? --Kbabej (talk) 00:23, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

As far as I can recall, there's never been a discussion regarding the use of "American-Australian", but American-born Australian has been the longstanding version for a while now, so it seems to be the one that users have agreed to utilize. That being said though, personally I feel that American-born Australian works well as she is primarily Australian (both her parents are Australian and she was raised in Australia since she was four, some view it that she only happened to be born in the US). Others have even gone further to remove the "American" part, even though she holds American citizenship (I believe you can find this in the archives). I feel that it's necessary though, as she is prominent in the US. I wouldn't object to using either "American-born" or "American-Australian" though. — Film Enthusiast✉ 00:47, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
I understand the argument, though I don't agree that she should be considered "primarily Australian". Someone either has dual citizenship or not. She holds both, was born in the US, and lived here for the first four years of her life. To me, it makes the most sense to give equal claim to equal holding of citizenship with "American-Australian". --Kbabej (talk) 00:50, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable, although I must say, I don't think I've ever heard the term "American-Australian" used before, is it actually a proper term to describe someone? Because I hear examples of "-American" all the time (e.g. Mexican-American, Irish-American, British-American, etc.), but I haven't seen it used the other way around, and definitely not in Wikipedia. — Film Enthusiast✉ 01:00, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
That makes sense. I’m totally open to Australian-American. —Kbabej (talk) 03:11, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Should've mentioned it before though. The term Australian-American has been debated before, and there are those don't view as proper, because it can signify that the subject is primarily American (in this case it can be seen as being primarily American with Australian ancestry, which is not the case), so I actually would object to that. American-Australian would likely be a better fit here than the former, but I must say, I still don't see a problem with keeping American-born. Would like to hear other inputs on this. — Film Enthusiast✉ 06:08, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Completely fair! Thanks for your input; it's appreciated. --Kbabej (talk) 16:00, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
The use of "American-born" is misleading as I've indicated here. We shouldn't downplay how she still has citizenship in the US in addition to Australia. From what I've seen, the hyphen signifies multiple citizenships (hence the term "hyphenated American") while using them spaced out as "Australian American" or "American Australian" would be more closely affiliated with ethnic groups in the way that un-hyphenated terms like French Americans or German Americans are. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:18, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
I can see how "American-born" can seem misleading, but so can using the hyphenated term (a quick look in the archives demonstrate this isn't the first time it's been argued, I've also seen this same topic debated with other BLP articles). So since both can attract disagreement, would it be proper to refer to her as both American and Australian instead? (i.e. "is an American and Australian actress"). If not, perhaps an RFC would be more suitable? — Film Enthusiast✉ 02:03, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Not sure why I didn't think of that before, but using "American and Australian" is quite a good idea and I have no objections to it. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:10, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
I have found that describing subjects this way incites less controversy, as it shows that they're equally citizens of both countries, without giving too much weight to one side or the other. — Film Enthusiast✉ 02:21, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Children's names

@SNUGGUMS: Per WP:BLPNAME, The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons. The names of any immediate, former, or significant family members or any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP may be part of an article, if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject (emphasis mine). I don't see how including the names of the children is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject. They're only mentioned once in the article so the names aren't being used for the purpose of distinguishing between the four, and I don't think we need to know their names to understand that they were adopted or born. I'm in agreement with Christine07, I don't see a need for including the names of non-notable children. – 2.O.Boxing 00:32, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

On the contrary, giving no identification at all for them feels incomplete, and any concerns about privacy are entirely moot when Nicole has consciously made their names public knowledge by mentioning them. A viewer who reads somebody has one or more child would likely ask themselves "what are their name(s)?", and it doesn't take up much space to answer this question. I therefore find it beneficial to name kids when such details are known and the parents aren't trying to conceal this. We're not getting invasive here by any means. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:48, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

The completeness of the article or the possibility of somebody thinking 'I wonder what their names are' isn't really important. Besides, I've never read an article, anywhere, and wondered what a notable person's non-notable children's names are. It might not take up much room to include them--which isn't relevant--but it takes up less room to exclude them and, more importantly, falls in line with policy. The names being published in the media isn't the deciding factor, it boils down to whether the names are relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject (which is Nicole Kidman). I don't see a compelling reason why the names of any of the children are required to help readers fully understand Nicole Kidman.

Additionally, considering the presumption of privacy is in favour of the non-notable individuals that have been named (age or relationship to the subject doesn't come in to it), I don't think the parents being comfortable with it has much, if any at all, impact on BLPNAME. – 2.O.Boxing 12:06, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

  1. ^ https://thewest.com.au/entertainment/celebrity-gossip/kidman-named-after-an-elephant-ng-ya-130494
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nicole_Kidman/Archive_3&oldid=1166070874"