This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Do we really need to mention that she has a three legged dog named chaplin? I don't see how it's noteworthy, what it tells us about her, or how it's anything other than the kind of trivia that would only really interest an über-fan. All it does is move the tone of the article away from that of an encyclopedia article towards that of a celebrity profile in a glossy magazine. 89.100.207.51 (talk) 16:10, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
I tend to agree, although WP:Trivia is more about actual lists, not trivia items. I do tend to support removing it as it's an unencyclopedic detail, of which there are no doubt hundreds which have been revealed in RS. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:43, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
I wasn't trying to say that the detail's in breach of WP:Trivia, more that it's trivia as in it's trivial. I just don't see the utility of such an unimportant detail, regardless of the fact that it comes from an RS. It seems only to drag down the tone of the article. 89.100.207.51 (talk) 02:13, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
We totally agree. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:33, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
High school
Jessica graduated from El Camino High School in 1995. Their yearbook says she was a senior there in 1995. [1] Sure, there is the remote possibility she was a last minute high school drop out, but there is another corroborating source with the Sacramento City Express: "Jessica Chastain came to City College after graduating from El Camino high school..." [2] --Shivertimbers433 (talk) 19:15, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Just got off the phone with the records dept at El Camino High School in Sacramento, CA and they do not have her listed as a graduate in 1995. I know this is not published proof, but hopefully this information will open your mind to the possibility that some published articles being used here may be incorrect. Cannesfan (talk) 23:48, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Private phone conversations definitely do not qualify as verifiable or as a reliable source, nor can editors cite themselves as a source. Reliable, published sources say she graduated in that year which is what will be included in the article. --Shivertimbers433 (talk) 04:54, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
The first source can be used to document that she attended and was a senior at El Camino high school.
The second one (Sacramento City Express), can be used as a ref for her graduation from El Camino high school: "Jessica Chastain came to City College after graduating from El Camino high school..." [3] -- Brangifer (talk) 05:35, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Non-notable awards
A lot of these listed awards seem to be from local or otherwise non-notable societies, or only nominated not won. I have updated The Tree of Life 2011 to retain just the most notable entries and reformat for accessibility (which will be in any case necessary one way or another). If this is generally OK we can update the other entries to match... Comments welcome. --Mirokado (talk) 21:48, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
No objections, so I will do that. --Mirokado (talk) 21:26, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Now updated the film section. It should be feasible to check all these entries, we need an inline reference for any for which the linked article does not itself mention Jessica. I have removed:
awards from special-interest organisations.
awards from local (Denver, Dublin etc) organisations with the exception of the Jolene award (notable as first mentioned) and Hollywood or Los Angeles.
(updated) nominations except for obvious prominent ones or where the results have not yet been announced.
pending, not even clear what that means without a good inline reference.
(update) also, whole cast awards which "belong to" the film itself
I see someone has restored some of the above without providing either an edit summary or inline references and without contributing to this section. Since it was not a blanket reversion I will give the other editor (or anybody else) time to justify the added entries before removing them in accordance with the above list.
I have looked a bit at the "pending" item. Jessica has been nominated for the 2012 Saturn Awards which will take place in June. I think we should only retain nominations for really major awards such as the Oscars, but it seems reasonable to add nominations for other awards which would be recorded here as wins, until the result is announced. In these cases it would be particularly important to include an inline reference and I have done so for this one. Also added an explanation for "pending". --Mirokado (talk) 01:29, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Awards section format
This needs to be changed a bit since the bold text is contrary to MOS:BOLD. I propose grouping the awards by status as is done on some other actor pages, see for example Kristen_Bell#Awards, which will allow a much cleaner listing. The first change(s) will just move entries with no content change, subsequent changes will reformat the new sections. --Mirokado (talk) 12:15, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
The awards are now grouped by status, then year, then society, then award. The grouping means that a lot of the redundant text cluttering each line could be removed. The lists nest which helps screen reader users. We can tidy the entries a bit more preferably merging society and award lines, but I am doubtful whether some of these entries belong here (as a separate issue from the film tables whose job is to list the films, at least the job of these lists is to list awards). The criteria already mentioned in the previous section are relevant here too. Some entries link to a wiki page which does not mention the individual award at all, let alone listing recipients, and some entries have neither wikilink nor inline reference for the award. I will wait for comments here before making any more definite suggestions... --Mirokado (talk) 23:28, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Ensemble awards (best cast and so on) "belong to" the film concerned. They can be mentioned in the film's article if notable. I will remove them from this article. There are various breakthrough awards which clearly "belong to" Jessica. Since they document her growing recognition I suggest we retain these in the awards section. There is no need to duplicate them for each film in the film table. --Mirokado (talk) 23:36, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Discussion continued....
The following is a copy of a thread from User_talk:All_Hallow's_Wraith#Jessica_Chastain. To kick start the discussion again, we are willing to use this to prime the pump. Read it through and then continue the discussion. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:05, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Given our recent discussion this might be of interest for you: Talk:Jessica_Chastain
I'd like to thank BOTH of you for your participation on the talk page. We really need input from other editors, so your comments are valued. Both of you state a very clear preference for a birthdate of 1977, and consider a 1981 date as false. I suspect you're right, but I'm totally confused by the fact that the RS are conflicting. Therefore I don't take any particular side in the issue, other than to seek to enforce policy.
Since you both so strongly prefer one date, what sources are you using? I'd like to evaluate them. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:51, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't prefer a particular date (see the 3 options listed in the discussion). After superficially browsing the various sources in the discussion, I basically only oppose the 1981-only option. The 1977-only option may be justifiable if people can agree what the official records say, i.e. when it is is obvious to everybody that the official records for her are authentic and state her date or year of birth. Short of that state both dates or none, with those 2 options being possible in any case anyhow.--Kmhkmh (talk) 05:39, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
I haven't seen any official records yet. Have you? -- Brangifer (talk) 05:47, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Nope, only (indirect) "conclusions" from genealogy websites. Nevertheless I pointed the (potential) option C since the birthday certificate issue was brought up in the discussion earlier. And some people seemed to entertain the notion that WP should/could knowingly publish false information, which imho is a misreading of policy intent due to an overly literal policy without regard of context, that is the concrete case, other policies, policy and project goals. So if we had indeed an (unquestionably) authentic copy of her actual birth certificate, then I would argue strongly for C, but so far we haven't.--Kmhkmh (talk) 09:45, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't think anyone would advocate for publishing information that we "know" is wrong, but only while there is still doubt and sources are conflicting, we parrot what RS state. Using logic (IOW OR) we can conclude that not all those dates can be right, but we don't know for sure which ones. That's where we're at now. As soon as we get clarity, we'll eliminate the wrong ones. We haven't seen a birth certificate yet. I thought maybe you had since you were so sure.
Genealogy websites are notoriously inaccurate, which causes me no end of grief, since I'm the family genealogist. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:09, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
We're not talking about a family tree of Jessica Chastain listing her as born in 1977. But the combination of the California Birth Record (1977) with that early article that called her "21" seals the deal. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 17:56, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
I guess I haven't seen them. Would you please provide them here? I'm interested in anything that will seal the deal and put this issue to rest! -- Brangifer (talk) 02:56, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
What do you mean? I checked the California Birth Records on ancestry.com, which someone referenced on her talk page, and the Jessica Chastain born March 24, 1977 seems like a very good match, mother's maiden name "Chastain" (no other plausible matches in any plausible year). As for the article that says she was 21 in 1998, it's here and it was linked right at the top of the Jessica Chastain talk page. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 03:15, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
1. The metroactive source is currently being used to document an instance mentioning 21 years, which tends to back up a birth year near 1977. So far so good. It's not absolute proof, but it's in a RS, so we're using it. That's good.
2. I just searched the talk page and didn't find any reference to ancestry.com or California Birth Records. Do you have it and will you just copy it here so we can look at it?
I'm deliberately avoiding discussing this on the talk page because of the personal attacks I always get from the IP. Here we're experienced editors who can civilly discuss and analyze this in peace, and I'm hoping you can provide good proof for the 1977 date. That would settle this problem. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:57, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Oh, it starts off with "Her record on the CA birth index has her " (on the talk page). Well, if you search, at ancestry.com, for Jessica Chastain born March 24, all you get is "Name: Jessica M Chastain Birth Date : 3 / 24 / 1977 Gender : Female Mother's Maiden Name : Chastain Birth County: Sacramento". You can also search here, but there is no mother's maiden name there. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 04:28, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
So we have unofficial (i.e. non-governmental) genealogy websites listing someone who could very well be her for that date. Interesting. (I've often had trouble finding any information for the current generation in my own research, but more information for the older generations. I imagine that if any of our family were Mormons, the situation would be very different.) Unfortunately for us, I don't know of any genealogy websites that are considered RS for Wikipedia use, but for family tree research, they are often good places to get information and tips. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:46, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Only three Jessica Chastains ever born in California. The other two definitely ain't her. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 04:48, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, those are the only ones yet submitted by users of the website. (There could be others.) It's probably true that she's the one from Sacramento, but it's not a RS. Although it's unofficial, it still tends to make me believe that she's born in 1977. Now to get something more reliable! -- Brangifer (talk) 04:55, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
No, no, you don't get it. The users of these websites do not submit these listings. These are the complete California Birth Records, uploaded by ancestry.com. There are no missing entries. These are straight from the source and complete. No user-editing in this department. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 04:57, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Ummm....ancestry.com isn't official. It's user-created and edited. Now if ancestry.com has special access to official state birth records, that would be a different matter. Is that what you're saying? Do they really pay for all those records? -- Brangifer (talk) 05:06, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't know if they pay for them, or how much, but these are all the official records, straight from the source. There's no question about that. These are not uploaded by users, these are not created by users, and you can't edit the California Birth Records, try as you might. To sum up, if your question is "Now if ancestry.com has special access to official state birth records" - the answer is, yes, they do. There is some interesting material over at California Birth Index but once again neither of the links I sent you are user-created or user-edited in any way, shape, or form. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 05:10, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Very interesting! The current state of affairs seems a bit complicated, according to the CBI article, but they have had them and seem to still list part of the information. Now, do we have a ruling that says we can use ancestry.com as a RS here? If we can get such a ruling, we could probably settle the matter right away! Would you like to start a thread at RS/N? -- Brangifer (talk) 05:17, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't doubt that it could be recognized as a reliable source. The problem is original research, how do we know that it's the same Jessica Chastain? Certainly in 1977 it wouldn't have said "Jessica Chastain, Oscar nominee", and so it doesn't say so there today. Of course we can make a very scientific guess that it is... but... All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 06:12, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Darn! I do see your point though. It (very slightly) borders on OR and SYNTH violations, but if we can find RS which back it up, then it's their OR and SYNTH, and not ours, which is okay. It is editors, and not RS, which must not make novel synthesis. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:16, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
The article's talk page has now gotten a "stuck" label on it! I've never seen that before, but it's true. We need to kick start this issue into life again. Would it be okay with you if we started a new section there by copying this whole thread? That might get the discussion going again, with these last points to prime the pump. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:30, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
I do not claim to retain the rights and priviledges to the text on my page. You should feel free to copy and paste it as you wish, or re-publish it in book form for a hefty sum without need of royalties. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 04:45, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
LOL! I understand, but it wouldn't be right to "just do it" without your acceptance. I'll do it now and let's see what happens. Thanks. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:54, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Continue discussion below
So, does the above sound plausible and within policy? Are we violating OR and SYNTH by doing so? What would the exact wording look like, and which sources would be used? -- Brangifer (talk) 05:05, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
No, it's not violating OR and SYNTH; it's using common sense. I'd only put 1977 in the header and make a footnote about other dates as there are reliable mainstream media sources for both 1977 and 1981, while 1977 is corroborated by government records and school attendance, whereas nothing corroborates 1981.--Shivertimbers433 (talk) 00:24, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Okay, would you propose a text and sources here for further study? This might lead to something all can agree on. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:36, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Something along the lines of...
"Jessica Chastain (born March 24, 1977)[1][2][3][4] is an..."
Not sure how to squeeze in the high school graduation/college attendance info which also supports 1977.Shivertimbers433 (talk) 06:48, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Also I should note that errant mentions of age in journalism we are banking so heavily on as reliable sources are notoriously flimsy. The Daily Mail, which was used previously as a "reliable" source in the body of the article for her being born in 1981 now states she was born in 1977.[4] Or take Brit Marling - the Washington Post, which is definitely a "reliable" source, said she was 27 in July 2011 [5] and then 29 in April 2012. [6] Obviously it is mathematically impossible for to go from 27 to 29 in nine months.--Shivertimbers433 (talk) 19:11, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Mandisa from American Idol tweeted a picture saying she went to high school with her. If Chastain was a freshman when Mandisa was a senior she'd be at least 33 today since Mandisa will be this year 35 and if they were in the same class well she'd be 35.
Does anyone know why when you google Jessica Chastain the wiki comes up with the birthdate of March 24, 1975? It has shown that for the past few days even though it's not stated on her page. 98.207.197.244 (talk) 02:18, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Date of birth, birth name, and birth place
Though most reference sites say she was born in 1981 this seems highly dubious:
A 1998 article about her early theatre work says she was 21, i.e. born in 1977.
Jessica graduated from high school in 1995 [7][8] presumably near age 18 and was attending community college during the 1996/97 academic year [9]
Her record on the CA birth index has her born 3/24/1977. The full record also says her mother's maiden name is Chastain. Though this conflicts a bit with articles that state she was born Jessica Howard, in the previous articles her high school documents refer to her as Jessica Chastain, not Howard. (Yearbook photo [10])Though this would also be consistent with articles that state she was raised with her stepfather so in that case she wouldn't have been born Howard.[11]
Public records search for Jessica M Chastain [12] has her born on 3/24/1977.
The birth record [13] for her brother William [14] has him born 12/24/1981, less than nine months after her alleged date of birth.
Also some mainstream wire services have updated her date of birth to March 24, 1977, including the Associated Press. [15][16]--Shivertimbers433
Yes, the person that was born on March 29th 1981 is Jessica Lynn Howard and we know that Jessica's middle name is not Lynn and her birth name is Jessica Howard and NOT Jessica Chastain.--Stemoc (talk) 22:42, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
IMDb has also changed to the 1977 date, corresponding with the same birth record. But if you use the 1977 date, you should probably also edit the birth name. Brndtnlsn (talk) 10:43, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
It is obvious there is no concrete evidence on her birthdate, etc - just speculation. Other sites are updating based on wiki info, so therefore it is imperative that wiki is not perpetuating something that may not be factual, and highly dubious is NOT FACTUAL!
There are numerous, credible links that keep getting deleted on wiki that have her birthdate at 1981, that she was born with the last name Howard and in Sonoma County. She did not graduate in 1985 for the named high school. High school students also attend community college courses so that reference doesn't prove anything as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cannesfan (talk • contribs) 17:41, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Your sources that claim she was born in 1981 rely on quantity over quality, and are mostly reference sites that don't cite where their information came from, and are essentially about as accurate as using an encyclopedia. Her education makes it nearly impossible that she was born in 1981. As for her high school graduation I assume you mean 1995, which is the only date that shows up anywhere. Per WP:NOR if she graduated in another year from another high school you need to provide a tangible source, not just your own speculation. Same with her biographical information, there is conflicting information whether her father is actually her stepfather and if Howard was her birth name or acquired later. As for "imperative that wiki is not perpetuating something that may not be factual" I don't understand why you keep deleting the 1977 date when when even you admit 1981 isn't concrete, and remove any mention of her father actually being her stepfather and her eduational history without any sources to the contrary. --Shivertimbers433 (talk) 18:29, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, thank you, I did mean 1995 for graduation, and she is not listed in the graduating class for that year at that school nor does any of the references cited say she is. As it does appear factual that she attended that school in 1995, she could also have been attending the junior college while still in high school, (common practice for over-achievers - which we can both admit she fits in that category), so that cannot be used to prove age. "Her education makes it nearly impossible that she was born in 1981", by your opinion, is a conjecture - not a statement of fact. If the information is credible regarding her brother, it is still not unusual for a sibling to be born nine months apart. There are far more references to "father" over "stepfather" in her interviews, and the "conflicting information" is maybe one article out of twenty. There is admittedly a lot of conflicting information out there, but there is as much - if not more - references supporting the 1981 birthdate. What has happened recently is that pieces of information are being wedged together to try and support an opinion and then being perpetuated because it's on wiki. Just think that we need to post responsibly and support changes with more concrete sources. Cannesfan—Preceding undated comment added 21:23, 1 April 2012 (UTC).
Where exactly is your source for "she is not listed in the graduating class for that year at that school"? If it gets down to splitting hairs the source I cited states she was a senior at that high school is 1995. (As for attending high school and college comcurrently, no, she didn't; the source I cited states, "[she] came to City College after graduating from El Camino high school") If I had argued she was born in 1977 solely based on that it would be a conjecture, but I corroborated it with public records that explicity state she was born in 1977, which is the same date that the Associated Press also recognizes so I'm not pulling information out of nowhere. Also just because a source refers to her "father" does not rule out that he might actually be her stepfather - simple deductive reasoning states that all stepfathers are fathers. I'm not trying to push any opinion - just state the facts which all say she was born in 1977, and as you've stated above her being born in 1981 requires far more speculation and wishful thinking.--Shivertimbers433 (talk) 04:32, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Also in regards to the David Letterman YouTube source here is a transcript: -Where are you from? -Northern California. -...What town in Northern California? -The wine country. -So this would be Napa Valley, Sonoma Valley, something like that? -Yeah, yeah, Sonoma area. -Is there a town you don't want to mention? Is that why we're- She never states she was born there, or specifies any more than Sonoma area.--Shivertimbers433 (talk) 08:25, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Shivertimbers433 has made a strong case. I think the 1977 date with corresponding birth name and place should be listed, with the birth record, AP and IMDb as supporting evidence (and making sure the whole page has consistent information). That the actress herself might want us to believe something else is unimportant; she has specifically said that she prefers not to reveal her actual age. Alternatively, all birth data should be removed and replaced with a note that the data is contested. Brndtnlsn (talk) 08:02, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
The public birth records, (that had no link, only referenced), have not been solely identified as this Jessica considering the question whether she was born as Chastain or Howard. The Romeo and Juliet article is from a small local paper that could have easily transposed the ages and is not sufficient proof of anything. Because there is such a strong opinion on both sides, I think the reasonable thing to do for now is to not have a birthdate at all. Cannesfan (talk) 20:09, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
So a published article in a newspaper doesn't count because YOU have decided that they "might have transposed the ages and is not sufficient proof", however published sources that support the age you like count as doctrine? LOL. 64.223.235.254 05:17, April 14, 2012 (UTC)
I mentioned on her facebook page that there was a discussion going on here at wikipedia regarding her age, a day later, she deleted my post..probably goes to show that she is definitely trying to hide her age but why? is the question, she isn't some 40's oldie like D-ListerJunie Hoang who recently sued IMDb for disclosing her age and thus being unable to get acting gigs. She is now a renowned (A-List) actress. she does not need to hide her age....--Stemoc (talk) 02:06, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
What a mess! I come here and discover that a whole lot of OR and SYNTH violations are the modus operandi. Frankly, even if her actual age were in question, we're supposed to be more concerned with what reliable sources say, and not "the truth", although that would be nice too. We can quote RS, even when they are conflicting, and thus reveal that there is a difference of opinion. Nothing wrong with that. One reliable source clearly says she was 30 in 2011:
"“I don’t like revealing how old I am,” the 30-year-old tells me..."<ref name="Walker">{{cite news | last = Walker | first = Tim | date = September 26, 2011 | title = Jessica Chastain says actress should never be asked their age | url = http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/8787832/Jessica-Chastain-says-actress-should-never-be-asked-their-age.html | work = Telegraph.co.uk | publisher = [[Telegraph Media Group]] | accessdate = April 7, 2012 | quote = 'I don’t like revealing how old I am,' the 30-year-old tells me}}</ref>
The source is reliable and clearly says she was 30. Speculations about her yearbook are OR and SYNTH violations, so let's not hear mention of that again. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:17, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
I graduated from El Camino High School alongside Jessica in 1995, and can definitely tell you that she was NOT five years younger than the rest of us at the time. She was 18. This means she was born in 1977. Sorry, BullBrangifer, but the Telegraph got it wrong. By the way, In Style magazine identified her as being 25 years old about the same time as the Telegraph said she was 30. That doesn't make them right, either. You can keep deleting the truth all you want, but the fact is that she will be 35 years old this year, 2012. The Telegraph is NOT infallible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.223.235.254 (talk) 04:35, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
The Telegraph may well be wrong, but it's considered a RS here, so we can quote it "for what it says", NOT necessarily for "the truth". Your personal experience is not a RS here and is OR. I'm totally open to any other ages from other RS. That's what we use here. I couldn't care less whether she's 14 or 55. That's not the point. I have no particular wish here, other than that we use RS, and not engage in OR and SYNTH violations. I left it open to the use of other sources. I'm not wedded to ONLY using the Telegraph. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:21, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Also, BullBranfiger, you declare the age the Telegraph gives as fact because they say so, but other published sources (including the Associated Press, MetroActive, and the online movie database IMDB), all cite 1977 as her birth date. Why should the Telegraph's age for her be considered fact over the other sources simply because you want it to be? If you read all of the evidence amassed by shivertimbers433 above, it is pretty clear that the Telegraph took a guess at her age and got it wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.223.235.254 (talk) 04:56, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
See my comment above. Unless we actually have her birth certificate (a primary source we aren't allowed to use!!), we have to quote secondary RS, even if they are conflicting. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:21, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
But you delete all referenced secondary sources that don't agree with the age you want. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.223.235.254 (talk) 05:20, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Jessica was born on 24 Mar 1977, And almost all of her fans know this. Why wikipedia keeps her birthday info out is beyond me ??? 100 % Proof is there for anyone to see that shes born in 1977 and the date is Mar 24. Add it already . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.195.173.68 (talk) 09:01, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Please provide RS for that date so we can use them. What her fans "know" isn't relevant or usable here. We would LOVE to have 100% proof, we just need such proof from RS. No one is trying to "keep it out". -- Brangifer (talk) 03:23, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Except, of course, that no matter how many published and reliable sources you provide and reference, BullRangifer will immediately delete them from the article and replace them with only the sources that support the age he wants her to be. Trust me, I am among many who have included and referenced published sources in the article that give different ages, but he immediately takes them out over and over again and skews the article to bias it toward his belief that she is 30. She isn't. People have been trying to get her correct age onto Wikipedia for months but some people are very dogged guardians of their delusions. Even IMDB lists her birth year as 1977, but BullBranfiger won't allow that information on the page. 64.223.235.254 05:17, April 14, 2012 (UTC)
We write what RS state, whether we think it's "true" or not. Your experience may be interesting to you, and it may actually be "true", but you are not a RS, and adding such information is a clear violation of our policy against original research.
Note that a "reliable source" at Wikipedia has a special meaning. It doesn't necessarily mean that what they write is always "true", just that it's verifiable. I know, it's odd, but that's our policy, and if you don't follow it, you'll just get in trouble. You have repeatedly added IMDB as a source, but it's been reverted and the edit summaries I have left state clearly that it's not considered a RS here. Always read the edit summaries which are found in the edit history. IMDB is specifically mentioned at WP:USERGENERATED as NOT a RS. Stop adding it or you will be blocked.
If you have any RS that state that she's 35, I'd like to see them, and possibly use them. As I've stated before, I don't care what age she is. Extrapolating her age from a yearbook is not allowed, unless the yearbook directly states her age. Otherwise such extrapolation violates our policy against synthesis. Read these policies and understand them. If you don't, your stay here will be short-lived.
So far the sources I have rejected have been rejected because our policies don't allow them, not because of what they say or the ages they give. They are simply not considered RS here, and repeatedly adding them violates policy, so stop doing it. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:23, 14 April 2012 (UTC
Brangifer, threaten me all you like. As I have a brain, I can easily change my IP address in less than 30 seconds and come back to Wikipedia before you have a chance to take a bathroom break. So can anyone else you threaten to ban for writing actual facts that disagree with your opinions. So nyah nyah, LOL. And the fact that the sleaziest tabloid on earth, the Daily Mail, is considered by you and Wikipedia to be a "reliable source" is laughable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.223.235.254 (talk) 02:27, April 15, 2012 (UTC)
In response to Brangifer, the birth records of everyone born in California over the last 100 years are online and easily accessible. The only uncontested information we have collected about her is that her first name is Jessica, she was born in Northern California sometime between 1977 and 1981, and her mother's maiden name is Chastain. Under those criteria the only match is Jessica M Chastain born on 3/24/1977 in Sacramento, CA.[17] --Shivertimbers433 (talk) 20:28, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
We also know that her birth name was Howard, not Chastain, which she took as her stage name much later. Familysearch.org is a useful site for genealogical research, which I do for our family. It is a user-edited website, and user-edited websites (like this one and IMDB) are NOT normally allowed as sources here. It isn't always reliable. Mormon family members, often young missionaries, send in what they find, and it can get quite confusing, especially when records for multiple people with the same name are submitted and they all get filed under ONE person! It happens all the time. That's why it often has multiple, conflicting, reports for the same person. In my own genealogical research it has caused me much frustration for some branches of the family (fathers, sons and cousins with the same names, and a man marrying the widow of his brother, and naming a son for his brother!), while for other branches I've been quite lucky with one branch and traced it back to 1435 in Hinwick, Bedfordshire, England.
I'm not sure of the procedure for obtaining official birth records from the state of California, but I suspect it costs money. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:56, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
I definitely wouldn't say we know her birth name was Howard, which was why that was removed from the article along with her date of birth. There is conflicting information whether her father is actually her stepfather and if she was actually "born" Howard. There are also conflicts if Jessica Chastain is a stage name she took much later, for one her high school yearbook photos refer to her as Jessica Chastain, not Howard. [18] Also the database I cited isn't part of the user-submitted data on Familysearch, the same index of California births appears on other sites with the same information, I only used it here because it displays all of the information like mother's last name without a subscription. --Shivertimbers433 (talk) 03:01, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Interesting. Thanks. This really is a confusing situation! It would be nice if she straightened this out, once and for all. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:24, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
But Brangifer says her legal birth record does not count as a source and can't be allowed in the article, while the age listed by the Daily Mail, widely considered to be the most unreliable, unresearched and sleaziest tabloid in the English-speaking world, does count and has therefore been included in the article by him. Go figure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.223.235.254 (talk) 21:25, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
I know that it was previously considered OR to use a primary source like a legal birth record, but I know that things change here and I'm in doubt now. I'm going to check on whether we can use it, IF we can get it. It would be nice to confirm that March 24, 1977 date, because a few sources do use it, and we are now using one of them that's considered a RS here. NOTE that I didn't delete it, contrary to your repeated accusation, I actually improved it! I have never deleted a source because of the date, only because the source itself isn't considered reliable here. (It would be nice if you did a bit of investigation before making false charges.) I see that you still haven't read our policy on WP:RS, as you've been instructed to do. "Reliable source" at Wikipedia has a special meaning and you need to learn it. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:56, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Brangifer, sweetie, I don't "need" to do anything because YOU have "instructed" me to. Your "instructions" mean about as much to me as the threats you send to my account that you will banish me if I continue to pursue the age issue. You aren't that important to me, so please get off of your high horse and get over yourself. And you have indeed repeatedly biased the article, not improved it, to make the birth year YOU wanted sound like it was the consensus of the media. It was only after a great deal of argument from several people, including myself, and repeated revisions of the article by you to support the age you like that you finally even acquiesced to include the fact that the Associated Press lists her birth date as 1977 alongside the sleazy tabloids YOU referenced that gave her birth year as 1981, so stop pretending you did that because you wanted to take it upon yourself to improve the article. And I don't care if you and Wikipedia consider sleazy tabloids like the Daily Mail and fluff periodicals like People magazine to be more "reliable sources" than an actual legal birth record by the state of California. They aren't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.223.235.254 (talk) 02:24, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
So far, it looks like it would be best to only use her birth year until we have reliable, secondary, sources for more, and we still don't have absolute certainty on that matter, so we just list the various years given in RS. As I suspected, the use of primary sources (like birth certificates) is strongly discouraged. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:51, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Gary Oldman says in TIME Jessica Chastain is 30 years old. That would mean she was born in 1981 and not 1977. This confuses me a lot. Why are some people sayin 1977? Any proof ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.195.175.167 (talk) 00:05, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Not quite. If that article is accurate then that would mean she was born in 1982 since her birthday was a month before its publication, and per her documented age in reliable sources she has managed to stay 30 for more than a year.--Shivertimbers433 (talk) 00:13, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
There is no particular reason to think Gary Oldman would know the correct date of Jessica Chastain's birth. He is not a relative of hers and only met her in 2011 when they filmed the movie Lawless. He most likely just accepted as fact the age that several fluff media sources like People magazine had incorrectly stated around that time. 64.223.235.254 04:13, April 21, 2012 (UTC)
You may well be right, but of course neither of us knows for sure. Maybe he's secretly a close relative! Any speculations on our part aren't usable for editing purposes here. Unfortunately for you, as well as many newbies here, our policies (this is an encyclopedia, not a personal website) forbid the use of personal opinions or original research. I know it's frustrating, but we basically "parrot" what secondary sources say, sometimes even when we consider them to be wrong. It's our job to lay our personal opinions aside and still use them. (I've had to do that myriad times here.) If they are "reliable sources" (IOW they are verifiable and generally well-known and respected, even if they publish what we personally consider to be junk!), we can use them as sources. Sometimes for fact, and other times for their opinions.
As you should know by now, I have no idea how old she is, and I couldn't care less about any particular age or date. I'm just trying to ensure that we "parrot" whatever sources say, using only those which Wikipedia considers "reliable", using its special definition for that word, which isn't the usual definition. Those are not my policies, but Wikipedia's, so any disagreement you have are with them, not with me. If you can get them changed, I'll follow the revised policies, so go for it! -- Brangifer (talk) 04:46, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Brangifer, you have officially lost your mind. You have included "a comment by Gary Oldman" as a referenced source in the article on the basis that "maybe he's secretly a close relative of hers!" while excluding her official birth record and other sources. If it is actually Wikipedia's official policy that another actor's statement of her age is a "reliable source" while her birth record is not, that is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. And obviously, including his statement (which he probably got from Wikipedia during the entire year when it was listed as fact that she was that age) as a referenced source because he might possibly be her "secret close relative" is beyond idiotic. Good Lord.
Also, please stop pretending you "couldn't care less about any particular age". You spent months revising this article over and over again to exclude any date except the one you wanted. It was only after numerous people argued with you for months that you finally even allowed the Associated Press' date for her birth into the article, but continued to revise the article to strongly bias it toward the age you like by making it sound as if that age is the consensus. The fact that you included a "comment by Gary Oldman" as a "reliable source" while deleting such secondary sources as IMDB because they don't agree with the age you have been promoting for months makes that pretty clear.
And again, YOU may not know for sure, but I do. I am aware that my personal experience cannot be used as a reference in the article (although apparently Gary Oldman's can since it supports the age you like, LOL), but I did in fact go to El Camino High School with Jessica. We graduated together in 1995, and took driver's ed together in the 11th grade in 1994. If the 1981 birth date were correct, she would have been driving at the age of 12, as the driver's ed class started in January of that year. I can assure you that the state of California does not allow 12-year-olds to drive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.223.235.254 (talk) 05:09, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
"Months"??? My first edit was on April 10. Now stop the lying. Your abominable reading comprehension and pushing of your personal POV about ONE particular date (you, not I, are the only one pushing for ONE date, and that is based on your own personal experience) are really getting out of hand. Your personal attacks and lies aren't acceptable. Contrary to your false accusation ("on the basis that "maybe he's secretly a close relative of hers!"") I have NOT made any edit because of any speculation about Gary Oldman's relationship to Jessica. My comment was a talk page comment designed to show how original research can get one in trouble here, and definitely not intended to be taken seriously by you. Your reading comprehension is really bad! You were trying to slam Oldman as a source, but we don't know anything at all about the background for his comment about her age. What if he knew more than we do? We don't know. That's why you have no right to slam him. It is the fact that his comments are published by Time Magazine that make them eligible for use here, not whether he's right or not.
You admit to letting personal experience guide your editing and comments here. Your experience may well be correct. I'm not doubting that. I tend to believe you. The problem is your personal attacks and emotional involvement in the discussion. Discuss content, not editors. I've been very patient with you. Most editors would have been blocked long ago for your behavior.
Now we just need RS. I have only deleted sources which aren't considered reliable here, and that has nothing to do with whatever date they happened to mention. We now have at least three different possible ages, documented using RS. None of them are my favorite. I don't care. I am willing to include ALL RS that mention ANY date or age. Obviously they can't all be right, and the numbers supporting a particular date aren't any kind of "consensus". I hope we can find a definitive source soon. We don't have her birth certificate, and so far policy and the opinions of very experienced editors suggest that we should only use it if it is cited in RS. Just be patient and stop the personal attacks. The lying isn't helping you. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:24, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
YOU are the liar here, Brangifer. YOU are the one who edited the article to include a comment by Gary Oldman as a "reliable source" after repeatedly declaring that personal experience and comments don't count as such (and I didn't "slam Gary Oldman" as a source - talk about lousy reading comprehension! I merely pointed out that his personal belief of her age is not a reliable source, based on YOUR insistence that personal experience doesn't count). YOU are the one who defended your inclusion of his comment in the article on this page based on your belief that he "might be a secret close relative of hers!". You admit that we "don't know" if he knows her actual age, yet you include his comment as a referenced, reliable source in the article, while excluding sources such as her official birth record. An actor's "comment" should certainly not be considered a reliable source for an encyclopedia article, and that is NOT a "slam" against Gary Oldman. Stop lying and twisting facts to support your desperate need not to accept reality and push your own agenda. I have advocated for including official birth records and published sources that don't agree with your belief. YOU have repeatedly attacked me personally, including sending messages to my account threatening to ban me if I don't stop pursuing the age issue AND "instructing" me that I "need" to follow your orders. Get over yourself already. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.223.235.254 (talk) 19:55, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
You lied about "months". Admit it.
I have only made two publicly viewable comments on your talk page, which is perfectly allowable and common practice here. That you refused to accept the advice of an experienced editor does not speak well of you.
My previous comment explained why Oldman's comment is allowed here. It's not because of "him", but because of the source.
Now apologize for your false accusations and stop the personal attacks. Discuss content, not editors. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:04, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Take your own advice, Brangifer. Apologize to me for repeatedly threatening me with banishment for disagreeing with you, for insisting that I "slammed" Gary Oldman for disagreeing that his comment should be considered a reliable source of her age in the article when official birth records and sources such as IMDB are deleted by you as unreliable sources for the same, for your absurdly imperious tone and rude orders, and for your repeated personal attacks, including snide remarks about my "reading comprehension" when I point out your ridiculous comments such as defending your inclusion of an actor's comment as proof of her age because he "might be a secret relative of hers!", etc. When I get your apology for all of that, perhaps I will consider apologizing to you. Now do it because I say so and if you can issue orders to me, I can issue them to you, too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.223.235.254 (talk) 21:18, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Brangifer, the fact that "an experienced Wikipedia editor" has been carrying on like you have on this page does not "speak well" of either Wikipedia or you. You have made as many personal attacks and false accusations as the unsigned poster has, if not more (and most of his attacks seem to be in response to yours). I also have to say that it seems very apparent from your editing history on this article that if anyone else had tried to include a comment by an actor as a source to support Chastain being 35, you would have deleted it immediately and cited a bunch of rules why it is not allowed. The only reason you put it in is because it supports the age of 30 which you seem to be advocating. Please don't start shrieking now that I am "slamming" Gary Oldman, because I am not any more than the unsigned poster was. I just find it laughable that you insist an actor's opinion is worth more as an encyclopedia source than a whole lot of published sources which are deemed unreliable. I suspect you can find a rule to support whatever edits you feel like making.Mjp1967 (talk) 19:52, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Again....reading comprehension. Your WP:IDHT attitude won't work with me or fool anyone else. Please READ what I've written before attacking me.
Let me repeat.... The only reason Oldman's comment is allowable (in this situation) is because of the "source" it was published in. It is Time Magazine that is considered the RS, not Oldman. If he had said she was 45, I would still include it. Once we get this sorted out with certainty, we can probably eliminate most of these references and use only a few that are definitively correct. Right now we are including the various opinions we can find, right or wrong, IF they are written in RS. It is their opinion, not Wikipedia's. We just document the fact that such opinions, right or wrong, are held by some.
As for the sources which you have been considering "reliable", IMDB is expressly excluded by our rules. I don't make those rules (quoted below):
"The IMDb should be regarded as a questionable source, especially for future films. Its content is user-submitted and often subject to incorrect speculation and rumor. The use of the IMDb on Wikipedia for referencing is considered unacceptable and strongly discouraged." [19]
"Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable. This includes any website whose content is largely user-generated, including the Internet Movie Database,..." [20]
Let me repeat again: "I am willing to include ALL RS that mention ANY date or age," and my editing proves that to be true. I have no favorite age. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:00, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
My reading comprehension is excellent, Brangifer (your own could use some serious work). I don't know who you believe I am trying to "fool", as I believe my comments have been fairly straightforward. Perhaps if you stopped behaving like a middle-schooler rolling her eyes at anyone who points out that she is not infallible, you would get better responses from people. Your abrasive comments in which you have called other people liars and mocked the reading comprehension of everyone who disagrees with you are as much personal attacks as anything that has been directed at you.
I stand by my assertion that you would not have allowed the Oldman comment into the article if he had said she was 35 and anyone else had tried to include it (no, I am not slamming Oldman, I am merely disagreeing with your editing). It makes no difference what magazine quoted him, it is still a statement by an actor with no verifiability behind it. I think applying some common sense would be the intelligent thing to do. Mjp1967 (talk) 17:18, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
I think it's a pretty clear lie when I'm accused of editing here for "months", when my first edit was on April 10. Do you deny that? It's also a lie that I have only supported an age of 30. I still haven't gotten an apology for those examples of poor reading comprehension and failures to AGF. That's not a personal attack, but a response to gross personal attacks.
Let me repeat again: "I am willing to include ALL RS that mention ANY date or age, and my editing proves that to be true. I have no favorite age." Have you read our policy about assuming good faith? It's pretty important. It means that you have no choice but to accept what I say about my motives as true on the matter, since there is no evidence to the contrary. A failure to do so is a blockable offense and battleground behavior.
Regarding the Oldman quote (and similar situations), it is the source (Time Magazine), not the postulated age of Chastain or the person saying it (Oldman or any other person), which determines whether we can even consider using a source. So far I have supported the inclusion of several RS supporting several ages. There is ZERO evidence backing any claim that I favor a particular age. I have also stated that I tend to believe that IP 64.223.235.254 is correct about her age (about 35) and place of graduation (El Camino HS). The problem is that we, as editors here, aren't RS. I would LOVE to find clear evidence to back up both of these assertions by IP64. As soon as we have them from RS, without engaging in OR, I'll include them myself, if someone else doesn't beat me to it! -- Brangifer (talk) 03:50, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Now you're threatening Mjp1967 with banishment for disagreeing with you? LOL, you are too much, Brangifer. Don't worry, Mjp1967, even if Brangifer does banish you, you can always change your IP address in less than a minute and sign up again. Brangifer, it is hysterical how you refuse to admit all of your own blatant lies and "gross personal attacks", (such as accusing me of "slamming" Gary Oldman, making fun of the reading comprehension of everyone who disagrees with your editing, etc.), all the while crying about how you deserve an apology. It is also highly amusing how your own lack of reading comprehension makes you unable to understand the numerous people who have argued that the reliability of Time magazine is NOT the issue; Time merely QUOTED an actor. Their quote is undoubtedly accurate as to what Oldman said, but it is NOT proof in any way of Chastain's age and should not be included in the article as such. Time did not claim they checked her age or even claim that 30 IS her age, they simply claimed that Gary Oldman said that. The comment is, as yet another commenter suggested below, merely hearsay.64.223.235.254 (talk) 21:41, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm not threatening anyone with banishment, just stating policy and practice here. Any admin who reads this page can choose to block both of you based on the evidence on this page. It's a serious matter to not AGF. It breaks down the ability to edit in a collegial manner with those who hold opposing POV. We need to be able to do that. Battlefield behavior and constantly attacking other editors (you two are the only ones attacking me) isn't approved behavior. Discuss content, not other editors. I keep telling you that, but you refuse to follow policy.
Oldman's statement is not being used as a proof of anything other than what he said in Time Magazine, nor are any of the other sources. They are listed as statements/opinions found in various reliable sources. That's how Wikipedia works. We do it all the time. So far we don't have anything that approaches "proof". I'm discussing with others about the 1977 date and they may have something that we can use as proof of that date. That would clear all this up, and I'm hopeful they can produce such proof. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:11, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Don't worry, I have no fear of Brangifer's threats. Anyone can change their IP address easily. Brangifer, you most certainly are threatening people with banishment for disagreeing with your editing, and if you don't understand that then you have serious trouble comprehending your own writing. No one has "attacked" you any more than you have attacked others, and you have exhibited very poor behavior for an "experienced editor".
You are incorrect in stating that Oldman's statement is only being used as proof of what he said. His comment is included in the section of the article which discusses her age, and is being used as a "reliable source" that she is 30. You keep insisting that it is included in the discussion of her age because Time magazine is a reliable source, but all Time has verified is that an actor made the comment, not that she is in fact that age. It is therefore hearsay and should not be used as a reliable source for her age, or included in that section of the article.Mjp1967 (talk) 16:24, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Well, there you go with your rude personal attacks again, Brangifer. You just don't have the ability to recognize how obnoxious you are being, do you? We have all READ what you have written and understand it just fine, thank you. You can keep insulting the reading comprehension of anyone and everyone you disagree with repeatedly, but YOU are the one who cannot seem to understand what you read. Various people have tried to point out to you that it simply makes no sense to include an actor's opinion as proof of someone's age just because a magazine quoted him, since magazines routinely quote people saying things that are not accurate, but you can't understand that (I mean really, you insist that self-published sources don't count because anyone can write whatever they want, but ignore the fact that anyone can say whatever they want and be quoted, as well). We have tried to point out that it makes no sense at all for you to accuse anyone with that opinion of personally "slamming" Gary Oldman, but you can't admit you are wrong and just keep making rude remarks that no one but you possesses "reading comprehension" (we comprehend it just fine. You actually wrote that I "slammed" Oldman for disagreeing that his opinion on her age should be a referenced source). You keep insisting that other people should not be making personal attacks, but you can't seem to stop making them. It is almost comical how lacking in self-awareness you seem to be when it comes to your own behavior.64.223.235.254 (talk) 19:54, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
I think we need to use caution on interpreting the exact age from that statement for one very simple reason....we don't know when Oldman actually penned that. We only know the date of its publication. He could have written it a couple months before that date. Lots of people were asked to write comments for the various people listed, and I'm pretty sure none of them wrote their comments on the date of publication. The only thing we can do is state that Oldman made the statement in an article published on that date. Quoting secondary sources is what we do here. Anything more is OR. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:51, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Birth Certificates discouraged? the ONLY proof of a person's age is not allowed to be used? You probably read the comments wrong. Birth certificates is the only reliable source document that should be used. What they meant by "personal documents" was the use of credit card information, marriage licenses or to an extent, hacking. Remember its not only her birth year that is been questioned, its also her birth date, month and place of birth. Some sources say March 24th, others say March 29th and she has not made it clear which day her birthday is either...--Stemoc (talk) 01:30, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Various arguments are forwarded by extremely experienced editors, among them concerns about OR (for editors to independently seek out a primary source is the essence of OR) and personal privacy considerations, especially for notable people: "If the subject complains about the inclusion of the date of birth, or the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year." (source) So, I agree with the comment that we should wait until RS secondary sources mention the date of birth, and then only list the year. --- Brangifer (talk) 02:51, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Another 3M (via RS/N):
Age information is often very unreliable in newspaper or magazine publications (even if they are considered as reliable sources in general). So if you have contradicting "reliable" sources in doubt state several figures and attribute them properly (assuming those sources have roughly an equal degree of reliability).
However apply some common sense, if we have have an authentic copy of her birth certificate (or some similar official record) that would be the figure to use unless we have a reliable source explicitly stating that info information on her birth certificate or some other official record is wrong. Note that being sure about the authenticity is the keyword here, it is not sufficient for an individual editor to merely claim to have seen an authentic copy or that some (provided) copy is authentic.
Now independent of that there is a consideration whether due to potential WP:BLP issues the any date should be mentioned at all. That is separate assessment and for that I'd say if (correct) ballpark figures of her age have been published in reliable sources already, we can in doubt publish her correct date of birth based on an official record. However there is one thing at we should not do, that is publishing a figure that we know to be wrong without any indication (even with proper attribution). So either the correct date (assuming it is established via official records) or no date at all.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:27, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
I've just finished putting on my flame-retardant suit. Here are the facts as I see them on this page, (fyi, I don't care about this article, or who's presenting anything here as evidence, I'm only giving you my reading of WP policy). Based on what you've all written, this is my take on the situation.
As per WP:V, "Verifiability, and not truth, is one of the fundamental requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia; truth, of itself, is not a substitute for meeting the verifiability requirement. No matter how convinced you are that something is true, do not add it to an article unless it is verifiable".
While some editor here may or may not have gone to high school with someone he believes is the subject of this article, unless that editor is published elsewhere on this subject, it's a non-starter and irrelevant for WP, even if it's 100% true. It *cannot* be used for anything other than the personal edification of anyone who reads it, no content should *ever* find its way into the article based on the personal recollections of an editor (likewise, purely from a policy standpoint, no information should be kept out of an article because of the personal recollections of an editor either).
As per WP:BLPPRIMARY, "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." (Personally, I think it's idiotic that we can't use a birth cert. as proof of birth, but that's how the policy reads, learn it, love it, or get it changed), also as I read this page, it doesn't seem that you/we are 100% sure what name would be on that birth cert. anyway, which would make it very hard to be sure we were using the right one in the first place, ergo, in this case specifically, I wouldn't use it.
As per WP:WELLKNOWN, "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say", but, see next point for the exception...
As per WP:DOB, "...or the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year", I didn't know who this Jessica person is, but I'd certainly agree she meets the threshold for "borderline notable", and therefore we should leave out her exact birthdate unless she announces it
Sadly, policy is a little goofy at times, case in point, Kmhkmh's statement above, "one thing that we should not do, that is publishing a figure that we know to be wrong", is not correct according to policy (see WP:WELLKNOWN I just listed). And there is a valid reason, and a stupid reason, for that policy. The valid reason is that people are people, you will often come across editors that *know* a "fact" is wrong, but without proof (as WP defines it), obviously, that's not ok. The stupid reason is we are here to report what the sources have said, right or wrong, we are not here to judge reliable sources or conduct OR of our own, we're just supposed to report what they say if they are reliable (and yes, TIME is reliable). Arguing that an RS document is wrong because you know better is 100% wrong based on WP policies, and pushing that POV is often a starting point for accusation of things like WP:tendentious editing, and shortly thereafter, a fun trip to ANI where all the bored/uninvolved editors get to feel better about themselves as they watch angry participants get slapped on the wrist (in varying degrees) by equally bored admins who have seen the behaviour a bazillion (yes, a bazillion!) times before.
Anyway, keep in mind before you get excited, it's all just my opinion, based on reading the policies, if you don't agree, that's ok with me too. -- Despayre tête-à-tête 16:20, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Excellent, Despayre. Very good parsing of policy. It jibes with my understanding. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:07, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Well I was aware of WP:BLP but not every subsection we've acquired so far and some may indeed defy common sense at first glance in the specific cases.
However imho you're reading those policies not completely correctly or rather you are slightly "overreading" them. Note that BLP:WPPRIMARY states: "Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies.". Though it might be a bit of a stretch, but you can argue that we do have secondary sources with the same content/claim so we can use the primary source. The other things is that WP:WELLKNOWN does not suggest to knowingly publish false information and it does not state we need to report all secondary sources. We do have secondary source for 1977, merely publishing the (false) 1981 (given what we know) is completely out of the question. Instead we have imho 3 options:
a) follow the policy to the letter and report both dates attributed to the according secondary sources.
b)using editorial discretion and don't publish any date (the policy does not state we need to publish any information from any secondary source)
c) use editorial discretion and stretch the policy slightly and publish 1977 based on some secondary sources corroborated by primary sources (official records).
Finally a comment regarding WP:DOB, though you might not have known the actress before, that is hardly a sign of WP:BOD. And I'd argue has a high profile actress with plenty of press coverage, nomination and awards is anything but borderline notable.
Also I'd like to note again that we are dealing with 2 different issues, which need to be viewed separately. One is the reliability of information and reliable sources, the other is about WP:BLP issues, which btw. have their own noticeboard. To avoid getting lost in details or epsilon arguments about a policy formulation and its interpretation, it might also help to recall the overall reason for WP:BLP. That is avoid that harmful and libellous information (not existing in reliable secondary sources) about people is spread via WP and whether her exact year of birth qualifies for that is a bit hard to imagine.--Kmhkmh (talk) 17:14, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
I would count Gary Oldman as "hearsay". There is no question that Jessica Chastain was born in 1977, and the article should reflect this. Ironically (?), there is a similar situation with her co-star, Octavia Spencer, right down to the high school graduation. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 18:52, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
I would agree with All Hallow's Wraith that the Oldman comment constitutes hearsay. No one is disagreeing that Time magazine is a reliable source; what people are saying is that Time did not state that Chastain is 30 years old at all - they merely quoted Oldman as saying that. The quote is undoubtedly accurate as to what Oldman said, but his belief is not a verifiable source. It should therefore not be included in the article as a source for her age, as it has been.64.223.235.254 (talk) 21:49, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
It isn't helpful to say "we know she was born in X" and "there is no question that she was born in X". Sources conflict: in this case they don't all know the same thing and they do raise questions. Our job on Wikipedia is not to pretend to know, nor even to say what we really really know, but to set out what reliable sources say. Here, then, we should say in the text that her year of birth has been differently stated, as 1977 and 1981, and footnote our most reliable source(s) for each year. Andrew Dalby 19:54, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
100% in agreement with Andrew, it's contradictory to have "reliable sources" that have different "facts", and yet conclude that you, as an editor, know better. It's also WP:OR.
In response to Kmhkmh, in order, since secondary sources conflict, and there seems to be conflicting information about the primary source name, that case does not apply here. No, it does not say to publish "knowingly" false information, but since we are only talking about reliable sources, by definition (WP definition that is), even if they conflict, they are reliable, and should be reported, ergo, you *cannot* know they are false, you only know one of them (at least) is, and that is covered by the policy I quoted above, you list them all. Your conclusion is 2/3rds correct imo, A is a possible course, and so is B, however C is a policy violation of WP:WELLKNOWN. And finally, I was not suggesting that this actress was *only* borderline, I said she passed the threshold, ergo, borderline all the way up to whoever is most famous in the world. Now this you can argue, but I read that policy to say they have to be *at least* borderline famous, you seem to think they can *only* be borderline famous, but given the intent of the policy, I think the more famous you are (starting at borderline) the more important that is, but again, that point is certainly open to interpretation and I won't be in any way upset if you read that and get a different interpretation. -- Despayre tête-à-tête 23:11, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Actually in some occasions you can know that there are false and also while there might be conflicting sources, that does not mean that all reliable sources are the same (there are different degrees of reliability and you double check "facts" with primary sources as well). A simple example would be a secondary source misquoting from an interview being available as primary source. The question here however is whether we have such a case. As long as editors don't agree that we indeed look at the right official record, we certainly don't know, even more so if merely rely on genealogy website with a somewhat tricky (re) searches and none of us seeing the original documents. So from that perspective C might not be possible. However if there were no doubts regarding the official records, then it might be different story. Note that WP:WELLKNOWN does not prohibit any form of editorial discretion, it merely requires to follow secondary sources which C still does adhere to. This way of reading WP:WELLKNOWN is certainly a bit of stretch, but imho justifiable. As I pointed above already when applying a policy on a concrete case one needs to consider the policy's (main) intent in conjunction with the overall project goals. We are not applying policies to letter or last epsilon for the policy's sake, but for the project goals. The goal here being having the (most) correct, reliably sourced article on Jessica Chastain (without being malicious/harmful/libellous).
Another thing to note (and maybe even an option for compromise between the 2 camps) is that the cited policies don't mandate anything about placing of content. So one option could be to give the most likely figure in the lead (assuming editors here can agree one one being the "most likely" (not the true) date) and move the other figures and conflicting sources into a footnote.--Kmhkmh (talk) 00:08, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
If you want to say that "should" from WP:WELLKNOWN is not the same as "must", then you have an option C option, otherwise, it does prohibit editorial discretion (not including common sense typo issues), while there may be some reliability gap between TIME and say... the New York Times, they would both likely be RS enough, and even if they don't agree on the facts, both should be cited. Your placement compromise idea shows that you're at least trying to work through the problem, keep it up. I only came here to give my view on BLP policy as I've spent an awful lot of time on it. I've said my peace (piece too!), and I have no particular interest in this article, so I'll leave you all to it, good luck, and I hope you find a solution everyone can live with. Ciao! -- Despayre tête-à-tête 01:24, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Get Along
My, what a lot of arguing over someone's age... Can we all get along? — Preceding unsigned comment added by L. Thomas W. (talk • contribs) 15:02, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
35!
Google News is calling her 35 now. Shall we jump on the bandwagon? All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 07:57, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
I think reporters (Daily Mail for example in this case) saying "the xx-year-old Jessica" as throwaway detail in articles are not really "reliable sources" in this case. They are either copying what other reporters are saying or using the same sort of reasoning that has been presented here. As far as I know we don't have a dated interview with Jessica confirming her age or any interview or whatever in which she gives her date of birth. WP:BLPPRIMARY says very clearly "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." (original emphasis). Thus I think we continue to say she does not reveal her age or date of birth. --Mirokado (talk) 08:26, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Why is it suddenly "throwaway information" that cannot be included now that the Daily Mail is saying she is 35, when Wikipedia moderators INSISTED in the discussion above that the Daily Mail is a "reliable source" and so HAD to be included as proof of age when they were saying she was six years younger? And since when does the subject of a Wikipedia article get to decide which information about them can be included for "privacy reasons"? Age is a standard piece of information in any Wikipedia article about a person. The fact that she prefers not to reveal it does NOT negate all of the reliable sources that now state she was born in 1977. Who is the obsessed Chastain fan who keeps deleting the many sources that cite her age just because she doesn't want it revealed?70.105.235.51 (talk) 06:13, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Vanity Fair's interview with her states "Chastain is 35." [21] --Shivertimbers433 (talk) 20:09, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, at least that is embedded in the interview, but it is a comment by the journalist, not reporting a response from Jessica. This would not be enough to persuade me to add the information, but if others find it acceptable I will not waste my life trying to remove it, as long as it has that or a better reference. It has just been added rather untidily. Please can someone who actually wants it in the article complete the reference, use the {{Birth based on age as of date}} template (or whatever) to compute the year(s) and update all places in the article consistently. The Persondata entry can't use the template, please provide the appropriate year range explicitly there. --Mirokado (talk) 11:22, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
The Vanity Fair article does claim that Chastain is 35, but...that doesn't necessarily mean she was born in 1977. She could have been born in September-December of 1976. (That said, I removed the year.) ErpertWho is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 08:32, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, there's no question that she was born in 1977. California Birth Index. So it's just a matter of time. Since most mainstream media sources have caught up with this, why don't we as well? All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 05:08, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Actually, that still hasn't beeen proven. If you look earlier in the discussion (granted, it is a looooong discussion), there are also plenty of sources claiming that she was born in 1981. The smoking gun would be what comes out of Jessica's own mouth, which we have yet to see. ErpertWho is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 16:25, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
But the California Birth Index lists a Jessica Chastain, mother's maiden name Chastain, as born on March 24, 1977. No one like that on March 24, 1981. So how could she have been born on March 24, 1981? All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 05:55, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
I didn't say she was definitely born in 1981 (or 1977, for that matter); I was simply giving an example. ErpertWho is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 07:57, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Everything on google news at the moment says 35, and nothing says 31. Aren't we just sticking to the wrong side of history a little too long? All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 09:27, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Why not put both? On, for example, Dina Meyer's page, when there was confusion over her birth year, with some sources saying one year and some saying another, both were listed. Why not just do that here until something more concrete is available? Tiller54 (talk) 21:45, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Why not put both? Because 1981 is on the wrong side of history. Most news sources aren't even claiming it anymore. And it's not factually accurate. That's a good trifecta of reasons. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 10:39, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Hello everyone. I have added 3 24 1977 as JC's birthday because of NY Times, a reliable reputable source. I titled infox box 'jessica chastain' since that is her professional name. I put 'Jessican N Howard' in her 'early life section' with a [citation needed] tag because that needs to be sourced. 108.56.237.111 (talk) 00:15, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi and thanks for posting here. As far as "JNH" is concerned, let's update with that if we have a reliable source, the current ref just says "JH". Yes the infobox should say "JC" as that is the name she is known by.
The "35" assertion with or without an actual date of birth is quite wide-spread but its origin and justification is unclear. Contemporaneous "reliable sources" were also saying "30" and Jessica herself is on record as refusing to say how old she is. Generally for biographies of living people we follow their self-identification for controversial information. My interpretation would be that Jessica self-identifies as someone who does not reveal her age and we should respect this: the information is controversial if she chooses not to reveal it. The BLP policy also excludes using information from official records such as birth certificates, so if newspapers are just publishing information from those we are not allowed to repeat it. No other source of that information has been suggested and there is not even clarity about which records if any might be hers. We still inform the reader accurately about the subject of the article, even if not in the same routine way as in other articles.
It would certainly help to reference the first para of the Personal Life section with the interview in which she says she does not reveal her age. That is quite an ironic piece as the interviewer also refers to her age ("30") without saying how he "knows" that! --Mirokado (talk) 01:12, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
(update) I found a more recent interview and have added that as a new reference with a quote, no change to the current article content in that respect. --Mirokado (talk) 03:06, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Hello Mirokado, So because Jessica won't reveal her dob we leave it out? I thought a reliable source is the threshold. The NY Times is the source, AP is the source for the photo. Since when do we have to judge how NYT got their information? Why is the NYT to not be believed?108.56.237.111 (talk) 11:53, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that is what I'm saying. We most certainly do not reproduce everything newspapers or magazines publish merely because they are newspapers or magazines, for example dates of birth of non-notable children (although you will be able to find occasional examples because editors persist in adding information contrary to BLP policy, see this edit for example) or paparazzi shots of celebrities sunbathing nude in supposed privacy, even when they have been acknowledged as genuine.
"Since when do we have to judge how NYT got their information?" We don't, explicitly, in general, but we use secondary sources confident that they are reporting primary sources that we could, and often can, find as well and which include sources meeting Wikipedia's policies. For example, a prince's or politician's date of birth is very widely known and acknowledged, an athlete's date of birth must be public knowledge because of eligibility for competitions and most actors do not make a big secret of their date of birth, often welcoming the publicity for birthday parties and so on. We are confident in these cases that the information is not solely based on (but could presumably be supported by) records such as birth certificates and the information does not represent an invasion of privacy. In this case those few sources which mention how they "know" her date of birth say "according to so-and-so" (hearsay) or "I have looked at official records" (just as much of an invasion of privacy as if I went and looked) and Jessica is on record stating that she does not reveal her age and carefully protects her and her family's privacy.
"Why is the NYT to not be believed?" That is not relevant to the points I am making. I would be happy to use the NYT as a source if Jessica also provides or acknowledges the same information, for example in an interview or widely-publicised birthay party. --Mirokado (talk) 22:02, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
"So because Jessica won't reveal her dob we leave it out"? - what is the source that Chastain refuses to reveal her dob? Has she ever been asked "When were you born?" in an interview, and replied with, "No, f you, I'm not saying"? All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 01:32, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Please see the ref in the Personal life section which I added recently and mentioned above. This has a direct quote which I have quoted in the ref:
Chastain has not revealed her age to the media, "Jessica Chastain: Fame is daunting". Belfast Telegraph. Cover Media. September 3, 2012. Retrieved October 22, 2012. Jessica doesn't speak about her age to too many people. ... 'I never say. Clearly, I'm not 15. But I like mystery,' she said.
This is thoroughly ridiculous. The vast majority of all facts included in Wikipedia articles do not come directly from the subject of the article themselves, but from reliable news sources. So why in the world are people so desperate to keep a secret of Jessica Chastain's age, which has now been agreed upon by all media sources (within the past nine months, every article about her that states an age has said she is 35, including the New York Times and all Associated Press articles)? It is NOT up to the subject of Wikipedia articles to determine what facts should be included about them, and it is completely standard to include ages in articles about people. Now someone has gone so far as to delete all referenced sources which even discuss her age because they were all agreeing she is 35. It is just bizarre that one actress gets special treatment in keeping a basic fact of her life secret. It appears that when tabloids had her age wrong and listed her as being six years younger than she is, her fans were insistent that this information be included, but now that actual reliable news sources have agreed she was born in 1977, all evidence is erased and people are crying that her "privacy" must be respected. It is NOT the mandate of Wikipedia to respect privacy, it is to share factual information.70.105.235.51 (talk) 06:05, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
I agree it seems a bit of an overly zealous and overly literal application of wp policies/guidelines.--Kmhkmh (talk) 16:22, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Responding to 70* and Kmhkmh: it is neither "thoroughly ridiculous" not "overly zealous" to apply Wikipedia's BLP policies. As already explained, in most cases dates (and places) of birth are well known, unchallenged and the secondary sources we cite are consistent with other sources also allowed by Wikipedia's policies, so editors can add well sourced content as they wish and the policies, although complied with, do not need to be "applied" in any overt sense. In a few cases like this, where the subject states clearly that she does not reveal this information, the policies do restrict what can be said. We cannot ignore a policy just because it does not produce the result we want. If you disagree with the policy you should seek consensus to change it. The policy has a talk page and there is also a BLP noticeboard. --Mirokado (talk) 15:05, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
The problem is not the policy as such, but its interpretation regarding this case and the interpretation that some editors such as as you argue can be seen as overly zealous. It is not clear to me, why there would be a WP:BLP issue at all, when stating a date that was was widely publicized in serious media. Nor do I read her "mystery" comment as statement of having information about her birth not being published at all (not volunteering information is not the same having a serious issue with the information being published). There is no line in WP:BLP stating you cannot used published information on persons date of birth. There is only a general line about the use of primary sources (such as public records) and original research, i.e. WP editors cannot use those to determine a date of birth of their own. However there is no need for that here, even though it was used on the discussion page for a (personal) confirmation of the published information. That however is a legitimate thing to do (fact checking/confirming the published secondary sources you plan to use).
Furthermore if a policy or guideline gets in the way of writing a proper encyclopedic article, it very well can be "ignored" in rare cases with a proper justification (see WP:IAR and Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines). Also I'd like to add a WP:BLP violation or issue doesn't simply exists, because an individual fellow editor claims so. It exists when a large number or the majority of editors after careful consideration comes to the conclusion that there is one indeed.
Yes there is policy page and the notice board as well as this discussion page and various other project pages, where the case may be discussed.--Kmhkmh (talk) 17:36, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. The most directly relevant part of the BLP policy relating to dates is WP:BLPPRIVACY:
Privacy of personal information and using primary sources
... people increasingly regard their full names and dates of birth as private. Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object.
It is clear from the BBC quote above (and others) that Jessica regards her date of birth as private and that nobody can reasonably infer that she does not object to its being published. The lead of the policy (WP:BLP) states: "Biographies of living persons ('BLP's) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy."
Addressing your points in particular:
Yes you can challenge whether or not a policy applies to a particular case, that is why I mentioned the BLP noticeboard, but I honestly don't see your being successful if the subject states in interviews that she does not reveal the information.
"I never say" seems pretty clearly to imply "I regard the information as private and don't want it published" rather than "I regard that as public information and don't mind if it is published". (Distinguishing here between properly private information which may be have been published anyway and something like a reported criminal conviction which someone might well not want to have published but is a matter of public interest).
Fact-checking: when we use secondary sources we can fact-check them against other sources which imply the subject does not object to the publication (already mentioned as examples: interviews or publicised birthday parties). We do not have any such source in this case. We can also check for sources which would cause us to "reasonably infer" that the subject objects to the publication. In most cases we find none, in this case we find lots.
You require consensus (or at the least good-natured acquiescence) to ignore rules, and things like BLP or copyright violations, making legal threats and various other matters are virtually never ignorable.
Personally I don't really care much whether the date is included or not and I don't intend to waste my time on that. I just wanted to point out that is not a clear cut WP:BLP violation as you might think.
As far as WP:BLPPRIVACY is concerned you left out an important part ("If the subject complains about the inclusion of the date of birth, or the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year."). Chastain is clearly notable not borderline notable and her age (at least at ballpark number) can be seen as an information of public interest. The solution, the policy suggest, is to simply state the year of birth, which we currently do not. Also I'd like to point out again, that while Chastain has made clear that she doesn't intend to volunteer information regarding her date of birth, afaik she has not yet explicitly complained about published dates be it in WP or elsewhere. All in all contrary to you I still see no good reason (and no WP:BLP violation) that would prevent us from the stating the year of birth at least. So what we have here is 2 different assessments of 2 individual editors and depends on the bulk of the editors involved here and which assessment they might share.--Kmhkmh (talk) 01:20, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
The mainstream media is absolutely insisting that Jessica Chastain is 35. I can't find a single match for 31 on the current batch of articles on Google News. I think we're on the really wrong side of history here, more so with each day. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 23:49, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Biological father
It seems that Jessica Chastain's biological father has been publically identified as Michael Monasterio - see for example this article. How do we want to handle this in the article? All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 10:23, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
BTW, in case anyone was curious, the surname "Monasterio", in this case, is Spanish, not Italian. If Michael Monasterio was Jessica's biological father, that would make her one quarter Spanish (Michael's father, Edward Monasterio, was the son of Spanish immigrants - here he is on the 1930 Census). As such, if Jessica Chastain wins the Best Actress Oscar this weekend, she would be the second person with any known Spanish/Hispanic/etc. ancestry to win in that category (Hilary Swank, whose maternal grandmother was Hispanic, and also from California, was the first, and won twice). All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 22:05, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Poor thing, it feels so terrible to analyse something that she doesn't want to talk about. --smarojit(buzz me) 11:35, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
I think it should be included in the article, at least mentioning her father since it seems clear that is fact. She will probably discuss this in public at somepoint (I don't see how she can avoid talking about things like her age, real name, parents etc...I mean her public profile is so high..she could be winning an Oscar on Sunday! Anyway, someone said that her name on her birth certificate is Jessica Chastain, (even though she has claimed her real name is Jessica Howard, but we know now Howard is the name her mom took when hiding from her father) The new information says that her parents were together and even had another daughter , Juliet, who killed herself. Even if they weren't married, I would think her birth name would be Jessica Monasterio. HesioneHushabye (talk)
There is a record of a Juliet Monasterio born in California, but not Jessica Monasterio. Only Jessica Chastain. You can search for yourself. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 22:05, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
That is so strange. Not only because her parents were together when she was born but that they had another daughter a year later and named her Monasterio? ...
it does say Jessica *M* Chastain. perhaps the M stands for Monasterio? in any case, it's clear Michael is her father and Juliet was her sister and that info should be included on her profile.
No, the M. in her middle name stands for Michelle, which comes from Public Records, which states she is 35, and has lived in Sacramento and New York City. So, this substantiates that it is in fact her, and the former reference to the middle name of M. would be correct as Michelle. Furthermore, Spokeo confirmed it as well, and it had her birthdate in March of 1977, so it is reliable. On the subject of Jessica N. Howard, nothing in the public record confirmed it in the least, so I think that IMDB is flat out wrong. Also, her parents were not married at the time she was born, so this leads me to believe that she was given her mothers family name of Chastain and not Monasterio, which is a very common practice for kids born out of wedlock.HotHat (talk) 06:37, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
By the way, the California birth records database lists her sister as having both Chastain and Monasterio surnames.HotHat (talk) 06:49, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Her sister's last name is not Monasterio, rather Chastain by the source above in the previous discussion, so her name was Juliet Christina Chastain. She was born on December 13, 1978, which is perfectly in line with March 24, 1977, so she had 21 months in between pregnancies.HotHat (talk) 04:43, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
I would love to see if someone could find out if Jessica Chastain's biological parents were married or not, which I tend to believe not, but I would love to see if someone could verify that information. The source calls her sister Juliet Chastain not Monasterio, which probably was taken from her deceased biological fathers facebook page.HotHat (talk) 04:45, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Infobox pic
Tried changing the infobox pic to this picture from 2013 Cannes Film Festival
Since it is more recent and a better angle. But was reverted back to this picture from 2011
because "it makes her look older than she is". Don't know if I agree with this so I'm wanting to get consensus. Lady Lotus (talk) 14:26, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
I prefer the older version but a different angle one .....--Stemoc (talk) 14:55, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Ew I like that one, if it's all good with everyone, I'll place that in infobox and the 2013 pic in the article. Yes or no? Lady Lotus (talk) 15:21, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Don't like it. Sorry. Let's wait for more comments. --smarojitHD 15:25, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
this is also an option...The image doesn't need to be new, it just needs to look good in the article..the current one is good but honestly, I prefer pics where the person is atleast looking towards the camera...not sideshots.--Stemoc (talk) 15:35, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
I like the last 2 you posted, they are better head shots Lady Lotus (talk) 15:48, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
"Her parents gave birth to another daughter, named Juliet, who after reconciling with Monasterio, committed suicide in 2003." -not clear if you mean her mother here or not or the daughter. It's strange in this context to say "reconciling" if it's not about a couple but father and daughter.
"The production led her to audition for the Juilliard School in New York City, where she was soon accepted and granted a scholarship funded by the actor Robin Williams.[6" -was it a scholarship fund for a few different actors or just her? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:13, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
She said in an interview, "Robin Williams is a very generous Juilliard alumnus, and gives a scholarship every two years to a student, and it pays for everything, and I got it. I still haven't gotten to meet him." So I guess she was the only one who got it that year. Krimuk|90 (talk) 15:14, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Wow, very lucky, top man he was, miss him.:-(♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:00, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
"She went to appear in such roles in a few other television series from 2004–07, including Veronica Mars, Close to Home and Law & Order: Trial By Jury" -years in brackets might benefit here.
"Williamstown Theatre Festival" and "Wadsworth Theatre". Mentioning the cities these are in would be useful.
"The actresses worked together before filming, creating a consistent voice and mannerisms for their character, and in addition, Chastain took classes in German and krav maga, and studied books about Josef Mengele and Mossad history.[34]" -"creating a consistent voice" I don't like here. Try something like "The actresses worked together before filmto perfect the voice and mannerisms of the character and make them consistent. In addition, Chastain took classes in German and krav maga, and studied books about Josef Mengele and Mossad history".
Did you already link Mark Kermode?
Lives at Carnegie Hall, are you sure?
Hahaha!! I kept thinking it was Carnegie Hill. Krimuk|90 (talk) 15:15, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
"passionate about creating awareness on depression" -"passionate" and depression cause really not the right word in this context.
"From 2012–14 she has featured in AskMen's " -implies continuity despite being 2 years ago
@Dr. Blofeld: All of your comments above have been resolved, Doc. — Ssven2Speak 2 me 11:42, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
I'll still wait for Krimuk though, thanks.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:01, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Ssven for addressing the comments when I was away. Dr. Blofeld, all seems to be done now. Thanks for the review! :) Krimuk|90 (talk) 15:14, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail: Excellent job.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:00, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Residence
The Personal Life section of the article names the actual street where she resides. Yes, it's cited by two articles, but does that really need to be included here? It seems way more information than is necessary about a public figure, and hardly worthy of an encyclopedia article. Does anyone have an opinion against removing it? -- Uncle Cheech (talk) 08:07, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
I am fine with simply stating that she lives in New York City. Krimuk|90 (talk) 08:10, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
I have just modified one external link on Jessica Chastain. 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.
I'm initiating a discussion here since the previous version of the article did POV cherry-picking among sources for the subject's birthplace and included two false statements that none of the sources made. (No source said "near" Sonoma but rather "in" Sonoma, and The New Biographical Dictionary of Film: Sixth Edition did not give a middle name.)
Moreover, a previous editor chose to willfully ignore WP:RS sources such as Biography.com that state the subject's birthplace Sacramento. He did the same regarding differing claims as to her middle name. It is POV to pick-and-choose among equally RS sources in order to insert whichever claim "feels" right to one editor unilaterally. WP:BLP places an especially high premium on accuracy, and when RS sources disagree, we include both claims until and if a definitive source emerges. I invite that BLP-violating editor to discuss the issue on this talk page. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:13, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm okay with the revised version. Please check my edit summaries. Cheers! --[[:|Krimuk2.0]] (talk) 07:08, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Lookin' good! Thanks for really giving everything a good read and being collaborative and collegial. A pleasure to work with such a careful and meticulous editor as you! --Tenebrae (talk) 18:56, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
@Tenebrae: & @Krimuk2.0:, would it be out of the question to list her birthplace as Sacramento County, California? This is corroborated at least by The California Birth Index[22], and it would give some specificity to her birthplace without making an assumption about which city she was born in. Just a thought. --Drown Soda (talk) 08:50, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Hmm ... good question. Sonoma is in Sonoma County, so it would seem as if the California Birth Index, a secondary reporting of primary birth records, has put the issue to rest. Since we probably need to address the fact some sources give Sonoma, I'd like to suggest we give Sacramento County in the infobox and that we edit the extant footnote to read: "While some sources give her birthplace as either the town of Sonoma or the city of Sacramento, birth records indicate only Sacramento County", and then continue with the rest of the extant footnote. What do you and User:Krimuk2.0 think? --Tenebrae (talk) 18:43, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Yep, that's fair enough, I think. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 19:54, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Since we all seem to be in agreement, I'll go ahead and make the update. Good collaboration1--Tenebrae (talk) 21:58, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks to the both of you. :) --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:50, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Jessica Chastain. 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.
I have just modified one external link on Jessica Chastain. 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.
Can somebody please change the "Chastain at the 2010 Mill Valley Film Festival" picture ?
I mean this is definitely not Jessica's best look. It's a bad shot to be honest.
Not done for now: Please upload a NON-COPYRIGHT picture to Wikimedia Commons (use "Upload file" in the left hand column). Almost all images that you find on the internet, in magazines etc. are copyright, and, unless you took the picture yourself, you will need to show proof that it is not copyright. Once the image is uploaded, please reactivate this request, (by changing answered=y to answered=no in the top line) and give the exact title of the image you want added. -
POV
I think the paragraph about strong-willed women, feminist themes, etc. is POV for obvious reasons. lo prenu .katmakrofan. (talk) 00:33, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
"Feminist themes" is discussed and cited in the article. It is also completely appropriate for an article about Jessica Chastain.[23][24][25][26].
"Obvious reasons" may not be so obvious to others. Please suggest concrete improvements rather than vague complaints about article content. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:46, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
Edit war
Leave the image at the stable version for now please. --NeilNtalk to me 16:35, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
I don't know what Film Enthusiast was thinking, changing the photo without participating in the RFC - I'll add a warning to their talk page. Another editor has reverted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NeilN (talk • contribs) 19:14, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Well, clearly, Krimuk2.0 and I are in agreement here. That's something, at least.--Tenebrae (talk) 22:16, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
It's a lovely picture, and I previously used it in the article. The only problem is the image quality (74 KB). --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 09:17, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
I apologize for, in part, starting this edit war. If the new image that is currently in use is the one that has been agreed to be chosen by most editors then so let it be. Film Enthusiast (talk) 23:47, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
So have we come to a consensus to use the current image? Film Enthusiast (talk) 23:48, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Would this image seem better qualified for use? It's from the same photographer and in the same setting, just a different angle. In my opinion it seems a better fit because it does not show the forearm which seems distracting in the photograph and her mouth is not open which, like Tenebrae mentioned before, "is axiomatic among photographers that you don't do portraits with people's mouths open." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Film Enthusiast (talk • contribs) 00:51, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Is this really an issue that constitutes the "edit warring" title? Come on. The Impartial Truth (talk) 06:56, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
I would really like there not to be edit warring over the image when the article is a TFA so two options:
Everyone here agrees to leave the image as is and the RFC closes normally.
I can ask another admin (I'm thinking Oshwah) to close the RFC early so editors can point to consensus.
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.
Two editors, myself and User:Film Enthusiast, prefer the 2016 Jessica Chastain image here rather than the 2015 image here. User:Krimuk2.0 has been edit-warring with two editors in order to keep reverting to the older image. He suggests in good faith we discuss the image on the talk page, and I'd like to do that and have initiated discussion. But Krimuk2.0 needs to respect the fact not one but two editors disagrees with him, and to stop edit-warring with them in the meantime as we discuss this. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:42, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Rfc
This article will be on the main page in a few days, and as I said in my edit summary, it's unwise to edit-war now. Anyway, Tenebrae seems to prefer a different infobox image than the one used in the article, and is citing the change made by an an editor with less than 5 edits to do so. To avoid further conflict, I'd like to gain consensus on which image should be used.
Much higher-quality image (2.36 MB) that I prefer.
36 kb image that Tenebrae wants.
Let's resolve this as soon as possible. Thanks.--Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:28, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
The one on the right has obvious defects in highlights, so the left one (2.36Mb) looks much better IMO Brandmajor (talk) 12:12, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Left: I agree, the Comic Con image looks much better and more natural. VedantTalk 19:35, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Right – First of all, it is not only I but two editors including me who prefer the image on the right. The image is A) more recent, B) does not have a distracting arm in the foreground, and C) it is axiomatic among photographers that you don't do portraits with people's mouths open. Additionally, I don't think any of us who doesn't know Chastain personally is qualified to say what's more "natural." An opposite argument would be that no one on a panel promoting a project is "natural" but is performing, and that being oneself at a private event may be more "natural." Ultimately, "natural" is subjective while A, B and C are objective facts. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:37, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
So nobody is really suggesting that you are necessarily wrong: The image on the right IS more recent and DOES more traditionally follow 'tradition' when it comes to portraits. However, the photo on the right has obvious highlight issues and is a lower quality. This article is going to be on the main page soon, and it is important that we present the highest quality image for millions of people to see. As such, I support using the image on the left. ThadeusOfNazereth (talk) 16:19, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes and i mean more natural in its light balance. ~_~ VedantTalk 17:47, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
I cant say that I'm very familiar with the rules concerning pictures but my position would be this: The Image of her in the yellow dress appears to have some quality issues. I think the "natural" aspect thats being referred to is the lighting; Gama, Glare, etc... The content of the picture is fine, but the quality is poor. Maybe if we had the same picture in a higher quality... Choosing between the two, I would choose the one on the left for an encyclopedia for the following reasons: The picture quality, The picture clarity, and that it seems to me to represent the person in an "unstaged" manner. The picture on the right appears to have "glamour-shots" type of photography which can create an unrealistic representation whereas the picture on the left sees to convey a more realistic representation. Just my oppinion...Fusion2186 (talk) 15:32, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Left image. Better resolution and lighting, no distracting background figure, and Wiki bios are not the place to show off the subjects' cleavage. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:27, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Whatever else the merits of either image, Wikipedia is not subject to editors' individual whims or Puritanical feelings. The image is a public, candid shot accurately depicting the subject.--Tenebrae (talk) 16:13, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
That's your opinion. Not what the rest of us think. So please don't push your agenda here, and kindly try and work in good faith. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 16:23, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Please don't twist another editor's words. You know very well from context that the dictionary definition applies. I understand it's a joke, and I love Monty Python's Flying Circus as much as anyone (and have interviewed three of them, including the late Graham Chapman), but this snarkiness doesn't contribute anything to what is intended as a serious discussion.--Tenebrae (talk) 22:15, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Oh I do, do I? What I can see very well is one user making a passionate argument in favor of one image (out of three that have recently appeared on the page) whose most significant difference from the others is that it happens to be the one showing the most skin. Seriously, that's not very dignified. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:59, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
So now you're making a highly personal, incredibly uncivil and flat-out incorrect accusation of licentiousness on my part. I am telling you now that you are wrong, that her "cleavage", as you so vulgarly put it at 04:27, 19 March 2018, has got nothing to do with anything. I gave my reasons: newer image, mouth not open, no arm in foreground. I hardly think those three objective reasons indicate "passion". Stop, right now, making your lewd accusations toward a longtime editor with nothing in his background to warrant such an unprovoked attack. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:04, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
I perceive a distinct lack of self-awareness here. I was not the one who dismissed another's judgement as mere "whims [and] Puritanical feelings". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:18, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
You're the one who brought up an issue no one else was even considering here, because your personal sensibilities were offended. And so you attack by essentially calling another editor a letch. That is a seriously personal insult, both inaccurate and uncalled for, and if you had any decency you would take it back.--Tenebrae (talk) 23:23, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Another editor used the term glamour shot, so I am not the only one to bring up the sexually-suggestive aspect of the photo on the right. Frankly, the fact that more people have not mentioned it seems a pretty obvious manifestation of gender bias on Wikipedia. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:44, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Whatever. You have no right whatsoever to call me a letch or a perv. That is so freaking far over the line, I am astonished that you have not apologized and I'm beginning to wonder if this needs to go to ANI — since I now suspect you're nothing but the Wikipedia equivalent of an Internet troll, deliberating continuing with this unconscionable name-calling simply for the lulz. You should be ashamed of your behavior. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:40, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Tenebrae, you seem to be feuding with everyone here. If you're the one accusing multiple people of bad-faith and passing judgements about them, don't you think it's time for some deep introspection about your own behaviour? --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 18:04, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
"Everyone"? Exaggerate much? This doesn't concern you whatsoever, so I'm not sure why you feel it's your place to get involved, though I suspect it's solely for personal dislike of me. If you're OK with this person calling me a letch, that's a pretty serious accusation — and extremely nasty and mean-spirited by you after I posted a comment way down below agreeing with you. No one has the right to call an innocent person a letch or a perv and I'm horrified that you think that's alright. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:27, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Look, the only one calling people "nasty", an "equivalent of an Internet troll", "Donald Trump", and other such offensive terms is you. From what I see, the user did not call you either a letch or a perv. If the user had attacked you, then I would have taken your side and would have told him to stop. But what I see is you attacking the other user, which is why I felt compelled to ask you to stop feuding. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 18:34, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
I quote Sangdeboeuf: "What I can see very well is one user making a passionate argument in favor of one image ... whose most significant difference from the others is that it happens to be the one showing the most skin." So, yes, he absolutely called me a letch and perv. I have done and said nothing in all my years on Wikipedia to warrant such a horrible personal attack. I gave my three reasons in a calm and logical tone. I barely commented after that until you started your four-revert edit war. My only issue with anyone other than you is this one person — so, really, your accusation of "feuding with everyone" is a deliberate falsehood. You dislike me; fine. But to take that dislike and insert yourself somewhere of no concern to you, and to suggest that it's OK for Sangdeboeuf to make that contemptible false claim about me, is really remarkable. This doesn't concern you. The last communication I had had with you was to agree that another editor's insertion of the image I prefer was wrong. And yet you take the side of the editor calling me a letch and perv. Wow. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:46, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Tenebrae, I don't dislike you and I have nothing against you. I just thought that I'd point out that the user did not call you a perv, but that's what you assumed he/she meant. If the user had indeed called you names, I'd have called them out for it. I honestly don't know you enough to either like or dislike you, and my disagreements with you have been purely content-based so far. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 19:32, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
I appreciate the most reasonable tone, and while I still don't know why you felt it necessary to comment on something between two editors of no concern to you, I sincerely appreciate your dialing down the rhetoric. I don't believe there is is any other interpretation for "passionate argument in favor of one image ... whose most significant difference from the others is that it happens to be the one showing the most skin."
But giving you the benefit of the doubt, I ask sincerely: What kind of person makes a "passionate" argument (which I did not, as anyone can see at 14:37, 17 March 2018) in favor of a picture because it "[shows] the most skin"? If I said an editor made "passionate argument" for a picture that "showed the biggest bulge", I'm not literally using the word "letch" or "perv", but that still is exactly what's meant. And I have done nothing, in nearly 13 years and countless Infobox-image discussions, to warrant that. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:49, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Alright. For what it's worth, I do not consider you to be any of those awful things, and did not in any of my arguments accuse you of having any such intent in your choice of picture. Anyway, I apologise for butting into the conversation and I'll excuse myself from further engaging in it. I also hope that we can move on from our previous disagreement and can have a much more friendly encounter the next time around. Cheers! --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 20:01, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Comment: the image on the right has one of the subject's eyes partially obscured. That's bad when the goal is to make the subject as recognizable as possible. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:07, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
As I said in my RFC that this needs to be closed before it features on the main page in the next couple of days. And since there is overwhelming support to use the image on the left, can an admin kindly look into this? Thanks. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 16:19, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
RfCs are not decided by voting but by the merits of the arguments. This helps prevent tag-teaming, for one thing, and the minority argument sometimes has more merit. Let the process work. Wikipedia has no deadline. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:23, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
That's what people say when their arguments have no merit. Consensus must be respected. Your individual opinion carries little weight. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 16:24, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Actually, editors who try to rush things through are generally the ones worried about their arguments having little merit. So far you've edit-warred and you've tried to subvert process, showing remarkably bad faith. Now you're throwing around insults and impugning other editors in a classically uncivil way. Your behavior is uncalled for and should stop. It certainly won't help you case as far as admins are concerned, and may hurt it. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:27, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Please refrain yourself from passing moral judgements. Follow consensus and respect the opinion of the majority. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 16:28, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Please refrain from four-revert edit-warring and subverting the RfC process. You could have and should have asked for an admin close, and not take it upon yourself — an involved editor and the nominator — to declare this closed in your favor. This is the antithesis of Wikipedia process, for which you clearly have no respect. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:49, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Subverting the process would be to disregard the consensus this RFC has garnered so far. You clearly have no respect for the opinion of others. Please try to do so from now on. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 20:12, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
You're doing WP:ICANTHEARYOU, which is the mark of a bad Wikipedian. Surely even you realize by now that you made a mistake, that an involved editor cannot close an RfC, and that the proper process would have been, if you felt there was consensus, to ask an admin to close. Now you're compounding your bad behavior by refusing to admit you did so. But even you can look at Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Ending RfCs to see that you weren't supposed to declare the RfC over. So you edit-war, you make a mockery of RfC, and now, like a child, you refuse to admit your clear error.--Tenebrae (talk) 20:24, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Again, stop passing moral judgements, and garner consensus for your preferred choice of image. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 20:25, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
A rampant rule-breaker has no right to talk about morality. Whether you have a sense of morality, I don't know. But you certainly have shown no ethics whatsoever.--Tenebrae (talk) 20:27, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Again, stop with the personal attacks or I will have to file another ANI report. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 20:28, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
You already filed a frivolous 3RR when you are the one who did four reverts. Do what you like, but beware of WP:BOOMERANG. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:34, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
NeilN do you think calling me such names helps this discussion in any way, especially after I tell him to "garner consensus for your preferred choice of image". --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 20:29, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Krimuk2.0, garnering consensus is what an RfC is supposed to do. Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Ending RfCs says plainly that an involved editor cannot close an RfC in his favor. That's breaking the rules, and I don't think if push comes to shove that admins will appreciate your rampant rule-breaking, four-revert edit-warring and frivolous 3RR filing. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:34, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
This is the 15th time you are saying the same thing. Instead of attacking me, focus on the discussion, and ask yourself why not a single person prefers the image on the right. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 20:35, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Then this is the 15th time you refuse to admit you grossly violated Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Ending RfCs, which explicitly states that an involved editor cannot close an RfC in his own favor. You can't see this is about having respect for the process, respect for ethics. I can see how other editors are commenting. And as I've said, the ethical thing to have done was to contact an admin and ask him or her to do the close. But you couldn't do that simple thing. You had to edit-war and try to subvert the RfC process as an involved editor trying to close an RfC in his own favor. That is so clearly, bright-line wrong, and yet you refuse to admit your wrongdoing. This is like talking to Donald Trump.--Tenebrae (talk) 21:23, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Left. Looks much better, regardless of mouth open. Jason Quinn (talk) 16:43, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Left. Picture quality is much better. Furthermore the picture on the right is poorly composed -- the partially obscured person in the background is distracting and detracts from the subject. CodeTalker (talk) 20:31, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Left - It's the obvious choice here...... –Davey2010Talk 21:41, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Left is somewhat better, neither is awful. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:05, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Left - The one of the right has bad lighting or something which makes her look shiny and unnatural Dbrote (talk) 15:38, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Left (Summoned by bot) How are people to read the article when their retinas are being blinded by the reflection of light off her thorax? L3X1◊distænt write◊ 13:15, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
Left (Summoned by bot) The right one has a less-than-optimal background, and the left one is better. Coretheapple (talk) 16:25, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
Left, before I even thought about it I was thinking that the left one appears more preferable to the alternate. I am not swayed by the resolution quality, but the manner of the photo itself. Bungle(talk • contribs) 17:42, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
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.
Missing or hidden filmography
Isn't it odd that the term 'filmography' is not used at all in this article? Up to now I thought this term would be standard instead of 'Acting credits'. Mr.Steelydan (talk) 22:28, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
I believe that is because her work includes stage credits. Coffeeandcrumbs (talk) 22:43, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes i find that odd too and actually annoying. Stage credits and other activities are no reason not to offer a filmography. If for some reason article maintainers think a filmography does fit well with the current article structure it still should/could be created as an separate artile that is linked here like it is doe with other actors (see for instance John Wayne#Filmography or Humphrey Bogart#Filmography)--Kmhkmh (talk) 12:47, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
— Ssven2 Speak 2 me 11:42, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
I'll still wait for Krimuk though, thanks.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:01, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Not done for now: Please upload a NON-COPYRIGHT picture to Wikimedia Commons (use "Upload file" in the left hand column).
Much higher-quality image (2.36 MB) that I prefer.
36 kb image that Tenebrae wants._(cropped).jpg)
.jpg)
