Talk:Uma Thurman/archive 1

Date on Pictures[edit]

So apparently a photographer was able to take a completely identical picture of Thurman at Cannes two years in a row, huh? IceKeyHunter (talk) 18:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

talk[edit]

Where is she born? The text says Boston, while the box on the right hand side says Amherst. --M_Buisman

What is this Letterman ridicule? Is he trying to pretending that "Uma" = "O my"? Please clarify. --Menchi 12:26 6 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I think that they both just had funny-sounding names, so the introduction just sounded amusing. GGano 04:37, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Any particular reason the filmography is in reverse order?

When did this event with David Letterman at the Oscars ceremony occur? I find it hard to believe that it is responsible for any significant part of her fame. --Yath 05:19, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Previous image illustrating article at Image:PulpFiction1.jpg

This seems to have too much fan information in it. Who cares if she wears size 11 shoes? 202.72.148.102 12:11, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

From the article: 'On May 1, 1998, she married actor Ethan Hawke, whom she had met at the set of Gattaca, and gave birth to a daughter Maya Ray and later on, son Roan.' Um. She gave birth to Maya and Roan on her wedding day?! Somebody who knows, please fix this and delete my question. eritain 03:08, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

From the article: "The marriage ended in divorce less than a year later, and in 1967 she married before Thurman's father Robert Thurman (b. 4 August 1941), a professor at Columbia University of Indo-Tibetan Buddhist studies." Along with some grammatical problems, this sentence is factually misleading. It suggests that Robert Thurman was a Columbia professor when he married Uma's mother in 1967, but he actually joined the Columbia faculty in 1990 or thereabouts. In 1967 he was probably still in graduate school at Harvard.

irrelevant facts[edit]

size 11? height? completely irrelevant. Lockeownzj00

Her height *is* actually relevant...it's tough to find roles when you're taller than the leading men... Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 23:10, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

lives in Hyde Park, NY? Should this be here? Even if you consider it public knowledge, it is not the same like saying New York City. - anon

not irrelevant although shouldnt be a section for it, facts could be blended into the article. crap writing from the original author(s). deleting and forming into main. - adi

life in India[edit]

I have heard that she apparently lived in India for a while and went to school there, can anyone verify this please? thank you. 213.6.10.4 12:54, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

She went to this school, she is mentioned at the bottom of the page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Embassy_School —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.134.90.74 (talk) 12:37, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Facts[edit]

This article is biased, and written by an author whose opinion is rather peculiar.

What is this about the Draconian World Order[edit]

That seems really out of place for the article. Please explain when it talks about medication.

Reviews of film work?[edit]

As Thurman is a film actor and Wikipedia is a site for information rather than trivia - can we fix this with a section backed up by attributable quotes? thegirlinwhite 13:05, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, like many bios it has been afflicted by celeb-trashyitis. Arniep 17:32, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Picture[edit]

Can someone find a better picture of her to head the article? 69.182.63.231 01:31, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I second this one, this is a pretty bad photo The Hobo 06:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We should use a free photo at the top, we have an alternative under personal life section-feel free to swap them over. Arniep 10:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --The Hobo 16:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why it's a foggy photo that is set for main picture when you have another one, way better, just under it? The point is to have a picture with the best quality possible as opposite to a picture that people like just because she is bursting in laughter. Put the best picutre there, not the one you prefer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.145.159.242 (talk) 23:12, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes[edit]

Whats the point of having a quotes section? Isn't this meant for uhh wikiquote..? Moving it to wikiquote :/

- user: adi kurian - email: adi.conflicted@gmail.com

I reverted your deletion because it looked like simple blanking. To avoid that in the future, please use the edit summary when making edits. It helps immensely when on vandal patrol! — Kbh3^rd talk 05:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

number of siblings?[edit]

Robert Thurman states that he has five children, while this article states that she has three brothers. Could someone in the know fix the apparent discrepancy? - Banyan Tree 17:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where exactly did he say he has five? --Fallout boy 09:25, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose you mean this [1]. That is odd, every biography I've seen on her states she has three brothers, and I googled it and I can't find this mysterious fifth sibling. It is possible it's a child from a previous relationship.--Fallout boy 09:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After looking into it, I found that she does have a half-sister named Taya. Added.--Fallout boy 09:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Filmography wrong way round[edit]

the filmography is upside down on this article, should be in chronological order (see all the style guides). please reverse it, or this article will be removed from FA list. Zzzzz 11:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Katie Holmes, today's featured articles, which lists from latest to earliest films chronologically. JackO'Lantern 15:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think Wikiproject film decided on this method some time back. Arniep 22:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

no dont see katie holmes as it is also in the same boat (see its talk page), except that article is also being slammed on its talk page for being generally rubbish. of all actor/director/musician/writer FAs there is only 4 including this one and katie holmes that dont follow the guideline of earliest first. policy is here Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lists of works). and wikiproject films decided nothing of the sort - see Wikipedia:Filmographies which states earliest first. cheers. Zzzzz 22:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see you're carrying the same discussion on multiple pages. I defer to my comment on the other page except to point out that both articles zzzzz links are inactive and he just changed the order shown to suit his needs. Why should I believe you carry this discussion in good faith when you're changing "policy" to fit your argument? Sad. Cburnett 03:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A further note. Zzzzz changed the Wikipedia:Filmographies to fit his argument so he could use it as an authoritative source (despite it being inactive). I've started discussion on Wikipedia talk:Filmographies#Chronological ordering to address this since Zzzzz is scattering discussion on many articles' talk page. Please continue this discussion there. Cburnett 03:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not only that, making threats instead of requests is the tactic of an ass. Wow. Seems that Zzzzz was never taught how to play nice in the sandbox.

I'm only here because I wanted to note that I was surprised to see that Uma had been doing voices in 1984 in Nausicaa... but it turns out that she did a voice overdub in 2005, so I moved the 1984 listing to a 2005 listing with a note that the movie was originally released in 1984. I felt that this would be a truer chronology of Uma's work. —X S G 16:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thurman likened to Mae West, Greta Garbo and Marlene Dietrich[edit]

This quote in the lead paragraph is misleading, I believe. "Thurman's style of acting has been likened to actors from the Golden Age of Hollywood such as Mae West, Greta Garbo, and Marlene Dietrich." As written, this seems to be saying that Thurman's overall acting style, or usual acting style recalls these women but this is not the meaning conveyed in the sources cited.

The first reference to Mae West reads "As played by Uma Thurman, Poison Ivy is perfect, flaunting great looks, a mocking attitude and madly flamboyant disguises. Like Mae West, she mixes true femininity with the winking womanliness of a drag queen. " This is talking about one characterisation only and the comparison is more to the character than to the actress. It does not refer to Thurman's "acting style" but rather to the persona or perhaps, the attitude she conveyed. It would be more accurate to say something like "Thurman's acting style has been likened to that of a drag queen". Sorry, but that's what is actually being said there. It says Mae West also acted like a drag queen, but does not say that Thurman acted like Mae West, but that she and West project a similar kind of femininity, the same type of femininity projected by drag queens.

The second reference to Garbo and Dietrich reads ""People talk about beautiful actresses," says Tarantino. "Like Cameron Diaz — she's a beautiful girl. But I went to high school with three girls who look like Cameron Diaz. Uma Thurman is a different species. She's up there with Garbo and Dietrich in goddess territory." Tarantoni is talking about her appearance being goddess-like. There is not a single word that suggests he is talking about her acting style. Furthermore Tarantino is talking about his lead actress in the film he is [then] currently promoting Kill Bill. He's not in the position to be objective, and chances are, he is not. He's talking in superlatives with Garbo and Dietrich by inference being his greatest "goddesses" but if it had been more beneficial to compare Thurman to Minnie Mouse, I reckon he would have.

To take these quotes and use them as a basis for saying Thurman's acting style has been compared to "actors from the Golden Age of Hollywood such as Mae West, Greta Garbo, and Marlene Dietrich", is a huge stretch. It's simply not an accurate representation of what was said. I would like to remove this from the lead paragraph as its inclusion there suggests it is a viewpoint that is held more strongly than the sources indicate. It bothers me that it's in the lead paragraph as that it's part of the lead paragraph suggested for display on the main page. I would be far happier to see these quotes accurately represented in the article itself in the "Career" section. Rossrs 13:01, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I went through and rearranged it so that it makes more sense.--Fallout boy 22:40, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed "numerous" from the Mae West comparison but otherwise the edits are superb. I think it makes the article much stronger by including the quotes. Thank you for doing this. Rossrs 06:57, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Thurman began her career as a model and modeled professionally throughout the late 1980s before moving to acting in 1988." When are the late 80's? --Gbleem 00:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

trivia[edit]

Has anyone read the new "trivia" section? I think it's fair to say it's worthy of deletion. Anyone second that? Wave of Mutilation 12:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. There's a strong precedent that featured articles don't do trivia. --Fallout boy 12:11, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I'll third it. Featured article or not. Agree with edit summary ("trivia - trivial") Rossrs 13:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism[edit]

Could someone do something against this dumb "Ass rape" Vandalism? The article is on the main site(which is perhaps the reason of the vandalism), so could it be made temporary unchangable or something? --DocBrown 14:27, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, it was quite easy, opening "Edit this page" viewed the original content of the page - I just saved the page and the original content re-appeared. Nevertheless this gives no secure answer to prevent the next pedophilic "Ass rape" vandalism case... User: Martin Jurek (Czech Rep.) 14:30, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, yes, I have done this. I was not logged in at the moment so I recoverd the old articel over my IP and not my Username. I'll watch this articel over the day to see if it was vandalised again. --DocBrown 15:01, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Someone whould concider looking this persons IP up and contacting the authorities. This act of vandalism was clearly disturbing and should not go unnoticed. Capt.Nero

I fixed the page again Sunday, June 25, 2006. I agree that Wikipedia needs to have a maehanisim in place to try to prevent tampering with the pages. This could be done by only allowing those who log in to edit any page. This would not infringe upon the philosophy Wikipedia has that anyone can edit the page, it is just restricting it to those who log in so those who violate terms of service can be held accountable. Thank you.

Pronunciation[edit]

Her first name is officially pronounced (yoo-ma) not (oo-ma). --PJ Pete

If this is so, why has she never corrected anyone about it? It's not like she's a shrinking violet when it comes to putting people straight. JJ

Updates[edit]

This new interview [2] is a good source for a lot interesting info straight from Thurman - how she feels about her early career and divorce/post-divorce. Too lazy to add some of this to the article myself, but to anyone working on this page.... Mad Jack 07:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I took out the wikiquote, commons, and spoken section.[edit]

I'm still somewhat new to this, and somehow, someone had linked porn onto them. I could be wrong about the origin of the pictures, but removing them removed the pictures as well, so I could be correct.

Height[edit]

Before changing Thurman's height, please read WP:RS. Celebheights provides a citation indicating that Thurman's height is 5'11 (actually, a link to an article in Time Magazine). The rest of the claims on that page are not reliable as per WP:RS but rather, unverifiable original research. --Yamla 21:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You initiated this, so it is you that "changed her height" (actually, changed the referece to her height). As a reliable published source, you cited a gossip magazine in which she claims she's "like five foot eleven." (My emphasis.) This, I should point out, from a person known to be self-conscious about her height, and already cited as having body dysmorphic syndrome.

Well, anyway, if an assertion is a gossip magazine is a reliable source, here's another one:

http://www.ew.com/ew/report/0,6115,1217449_1%7C%7C517779%7C0_0_,00.html

Larry Dunn 20:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, really, please read WP:RS. Time Magzine in this context serves as a secondary source. Entertainment Weekly serves at best as a tertiary source and maybe not even that. It certainly does not cite its information. Thurman may well be lying about her height but unless we can find a more reliable source, we have to accept her statement as cited in Time Magazine, as per WP:RS, WP:CITE, WP:V, and WP:NOR. --Yamla 20:26, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No really, please read those pages yourself, more carefully, as Time Magazine is clearly not a secondary source. First of all, it does not rely on a measurement of her, but only on an assertion by her. They did not lay her down and measure her, and they did not refer to a source that did so. There is no difference between the Time source and the ET source because assertions are not ipso facto accurate. What would be ipso facto accurate here would be a measurement, not an assertion of height.

Second, it's fairly ludicrous to artificially inflate an article in Time Magazine as a "secondary source," because secondary sources, as indicated in the pages you cite yourself, are generally scholarly and peer-reviewed, and syntheses of primary sources. Would you seriously assert that someone being quoted as saying she's "like 5'11" is an example of a synthesis of peer-reviewed scholarship?

Let's get real here -- it's one pop magazine versus another. Larry Dunn 20:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In one case, we have a source for the information. In the other, we do not. This is what makes the Time Magazine claim more reliable than the Entertainment Weekly claim. Granted, neither are great, but the Time Magazine claim is better. As an aside, aren't both magazines owned by the same corporation? --Yamla 20:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look at WP:RS#Aspects_of_reliability -- none of them are indicated in the Time Mag article. Again, the matter here is one of height, not one of an assertion of height.

Example. If I tell my local paper that my house is 28 feet tall, and the local real estate guide simply says that my house is 30 feet tall, the paper is no more a reliable source than the real estate guide. My assertion does not make it so, in any respect.

Let me try to find a compromise. Larry Dunn 21:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Larry, your compromise is entirely satisfactory to me. You have stated that there's some dispute and provided citations to two different figures. Thank you, I believe this is the best option. --Yamla 21:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well the current edition says Uma is 6'10". Now, she is a very tall woman to be sure, but 6'10"? That's ridiculous! She's much shorter than that!

Filmography[edit]

I have removed Bee Movie from her filmography as she is no longer listed as being involved in the project on IMDB, or elsewhere.HorseloverFat 08:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Virgin Media[edit]

Uma thurman stars on Virgin Media (UK Cable TV) advertising campaign —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.17.216.130 (talk) 15:46, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

Engagement Rumor[edit]

Thurman's rep confirmed today that she is not engaged to Busson. I'm updating the article to reflect this, with references. 72.185.43.62 21:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

tone issues in sections on film career[edit]

I realize this was an FA at one time, but the sections on her film career read like a Sunday paper A&E puff piece --fluffy and giving an impression (true or not)that its glossing over less successful films and/or emphasizing the best reviews. Being sourced and cited does not mean the article is automatically great. The tone in those sections sound like her PR person made a revision. This article us certainly a B, but those sections need help IMO. --A Good Anon (talk) 07:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Party Co-Hosted by the ghost of Versace?[edit]

How could she have met someone in 2007 at a party co-hosted by Versace? DIdn't he die in the late 1990s? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Curious georgianna (talk • contribs) 12:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a real puzzle. The report can be referenced by any number of reports including this one in the respectable British newspaper the Independent http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/shes-got-the-looks-hes-got-the-millions-its-the-perfect-match-856587.html, but it leaves us with just two possibilities. Either they first met at a dinner party eleven years ago and an unknown British back bencher managed to co-host a Milan party with a soon to be assassinated fashion designer...OR...there is someone else called Giani Versace now running the family empire. Can anyone cast any light on the enigma? 21stCenturyGreenstuff (talk) 15:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I wonder if the dinner was just laid on by Versace the company, which still exists, and was hosted by Tony Blair. Just a thought 21stCenturyGreenstuff (talk) 15:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jillette[edit]

Penn Jillette was a regular contributor to the now-defunct PC/Computing magazine in the early 1990s, having a regular back section column between 1990 and 1994. The columns were often as much about Uma Thurman as actual PC computing issues. He would mention her in every column.Lestrade (talk) 22:51, 28 September 2008 (UTC)Lestrade[reply]

Buddhism[edit]

In the "Personal Life" section, it states that "Though raised as a Buddhist, she considers herself agnostic." Buddhism, unlike Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, is not a theistic religion. In the original Buddhism, there is no talk of God or gods. It is, instead, a recipe for getting through life with the least suffering. So one can be both a Buddhist and an agnostic. They are not mutually incompatible.Lestrade (talk) 22:51, 28 September 2008 (UTC)Lestrade[reply]

I do not agree with you. Buddhism gives a certain model of universe, which is incompatible with agnosticism. --MathFacts (talk) 19:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Listing her as an agnostic is ridiculous. Even if it happens to be true, that category should not be used as a collection of celebrities who have expressed doubts about religion, or just failed to follow the religion of their parents. Gaohoyt (talk) 16:46, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A brief Web search will clearly show you Ms Thurman is 'not' a Buddhist. She once responded to questions about her religious affiliation by saying she did not follow any religion, but that her fathers position of being a world expert on Buddhism inevitably meant that religion has had most influence on her life. Johnwrd (talk) 00:25, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uma Karuna Thurman Hawke??[edit]

Does anyone know if she's still kept the Hawke part of her name from her marriage to Ethan Hawke? Or would she rather now have Busson (if the allegations of her marriage to Arpad Busson pan out)... Tabercil (talk) 12:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Photo options[edit]

Here are three of the best shots I have of her. On reflection, I am going to swap out for number 2 4, because there's something about it I like. But otherwise, if regular editors want something different, I'm not going to get too involved in it. -->David Shankbone 18:08, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1
2
3
4

Filmography and more[edit]

Hi, I'm new to wikipedia and saw on the web Uma Thurman few things that would be good instead started with the parts of the race, note that some have names like Early Work and Hiatus and some not, I might change that along with the awards, put on the table and filmography completely erase the award table. Thank you. I hope I copied an answer to my talk page Paraquad my editing is not as vandalism, and write me if you think good or bad idea. Greetings. Saod053 (talk) 18:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been waiting for an answer for two days. Thank you. Saod053 (talk) 20:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've been waiting a day and two hours, not two. Please allow editors time to respond. I have issues with your decision to go ahead and change this, since there is no consensus to combine all of the awards and there is no need to do so. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Screenshot images[edit]

With regards to the resizing of the images from Baron Munchausen and Pulp Fiction, I'm not sure we should even be using them at any size. They are not free images, and the image description pages give a fair use rationale only for their use in the film articles, but not for Thurman's. Usually film screenshots are not used in actor articles - I don't particularly agree that there is never a case for using them - but in this article they do not seem to add vital information to the text. The roles are described, but not in such detail that to not have an image would make the points impossible to understand. They currently do not meet Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria#Policy #10, and I don't think they meet #8 either. If the images are to be retained, the article content needs to be expanded to support their inclusion, and a fair use rationale needs to be added to each description page explaining the necessity of their use, otherwise they should be removed. I'll leave this for those editors that are interested in keeping the images, to consider. The images are from notable performances, but this in itself is POV, as there are other notable performances in her filmography, and if these images are used, we could equally justify grabbing screenshots from (for example) Kill Bill or Dangerous Liaisons etc. The latter is described as her "breakthrough" film, so by our own article content it's a more notable performance than Munchausen. Rossrs (talk) 16:52, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that the Munchausen image satisfies the requirements for use of a non-free image; the only textual comments to be illustrated are that she's nude (which doesn't really need much explication, pleasant as many might find pictorial evidence); and that the scene is ased on Botticelli, which isn't demonstrated by the actual screenshot. On the other hand, the Pulp Fiction screenshot relates directly to the quoted WPost comment about her appearance in the film, and demonstrates the point more clearly than any amount of text could -- it's a paradigm of acceptable nonfree use. But could the picture be cropped and enlarged? Right now her face occupies only about a third of the image. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the Pulp Fiction image is the more relevant of the two and is at least supported by a comment relating to her appearance, especially noting that it is different to her usual appearance. On the other hand, any brief comment about appearance can be made easier to visualize by the use of an image, but in this case the only part of the quote that relates to her appearance is "serenely unrecognizable in a black wig". Can we not just imagine Thurman wearing a black wig? Of course we can, but the image makes it easier, and more specific. I think that perhaps the role is notable enough to allow a little expansion, and perhaps a secondary comment could be included, because her appearance was talked about. Perhaps something from Tarantino would be good, as it was more than likely his choice. That would make a stronger framework with which to support the image. Cropping it would work too, as everything other than Thurman is irrelevant to its use. I agree with your comments. Rossrs (talk) 23:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the thinking is keep the Pulp Fiction and ditch (alas, and it will be missed) the Venus. We can always visit it at it's File page. So a slight or mid-expansion of the data on Pulp Fiction and that fixes it? Can the photo be at least a little larger, maybe 300px, if it's the one of the two kept? Thanks, Aleister Wilson (talk) 00:07, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To slightly expand Pulp Fiction is a suggestion, but I think it would help. My aim is not specifically to remove the images, but to ensure that they comply with usage policy, (and remove them only if they don't) so anything that makes their use stronger can only be a good thing. I don't think the size is the main issue, because the size on the image description page is what must comply with image use policy. Bearing that in mind, choosing a display size rather than a default size in the article, can have an impact on other users depending on what browser they are using. Cropping it to be more of a square might allow for it to display larger, because we'd lose a good portion of its width. Rossrs (talk) 00:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External Links[edit]

I removed 2 External links per WP:EL. --BwB (talk) 10:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I returned them. Rotten Tomatoes and TV.com aren't forbidden, however moldava doesn't meet WP:RS. Official pages on Twitter and MySpace are permitted. Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. It's just that WP:EL says to keep Ex. Links to a minimum, so I felt the 2 links I removed were repetitive. --BwB (talk) 11:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

For a former FA, this article has a terrible mish-mash of reference styles, with differences in punctuation, author name style, date style, and even a link to a bare url. I'd strongly suggest that a decision be taken to standardise per MOS for consistency. I suggest cite templates and the US-style 'mdy' for dates. I see that initial attempts to improve the article have met with opposition, so I'm posting here first to seek consensus to bring the referencing in the article up to date. --RexxS (talk) 23:52, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed; go with the cite templates. I am baffled as to why SlimVirgin did this. Nymf _hideliho! 00:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed; go with the cite templates. Go with WP:CITE#List-defined references, too. Prior to my edit that Slim de-templated, the article already had 21 '{{cite...' templates in it. I did add 4 of them myself back in April. I don't have stats, but in my experience, most articles contain cite templates at this point, and it's just normal clean-up to take it further. Cheers, Jack Merridew 05:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's an objection to adding more templates, so please don't. I have no problem standardizing, but that doesn't require the use of templates. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That would mean leaving this in an inconsistent state, which is at odds with Wikipedia:MOS#Internal consistency. Jack Merridew 05:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not about to do anything until I understand the objection. At present I believe the article has 19 cite templates and that would go up to 60 if cite were used throughout. If you are having loading problems with articles containing 60 templates, I'm sympathetic, even though I don't experience the problem myself. But eventually that's a problem the developers will have to solve, because the way forward is to use cite templates if we're going to achieve consistency in any article. Articles attract contributors and they will use any form of referencing they can figure out. Often someone more experienced will come along and tidy up their referencing. Look at the maintenance costs for anyone doing the cleanup if they have to figure out the details of the current citation style for each article in order to match it. Compare that with the ease that an experienced editor (or an automated tool) can apply the appropriate cite template and practically guarantee consistency. It future-proofs our efforts, and as a bonus (albeit more of a promise for things to come), it gives the capability to emit metadata. Of course, you know all this, Slim, and I know you appreciate the value of being able to make site-wide changes simply by changing a template. It's a lot of 'goodness', as Jack would put it, and it takes a lot of downside to counter-balance that. So let's have the discussion here, now that we've started it. I'm perfectly willing to go to WP:CITE if need be afterwards, as I'm a great believer in the doctrine that guidelines describe what we do, not prescribe how we must do them. I'm also happy to bat on your side if we need to go to developers and lobby for some sorting out if the system can't cope with as few as 60 templates in an article. Regards --RexxS (talk) 06:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've made the refs consistent, so there's no problem now in that regard. I also replaced some dead links, removed ones I couldn't find on the Internet Archive, removed some unsourced etc. The problem with this article is not formatting, but that it's almost a quote farm, and the sources used are very poor, including one personal website for her background, which is a violation of BLP. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 07:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rexx, regarding templates, this really isn't the place to have the discussion, because others may want to join in, but I can tell you that loading an article with a lot of templates is very very slow, and editing them is difficult because of the internal clutter, so they are almost always poorly written. I will post some of the technical information about the load time problems when I can find it, but as things stand, adding lots of templates is a bar to reading and editing for some editors. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 07:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The inconsistent state was that not all refs were using templates. You've now cut all the cite template, which is pretty pointy, given that this discussion is underway. I saw the fixes you made other than removing template usages as fine, and agree that the problems you're seeing are real; this is typical of celebrity bios, unfortunately. The purpose of this discussion is to seek a consensus on the citation style in use on this article. This is per CITE which specifically calls for such talk page discussions. I've spent years on slow connections, and really, it's not the problem you're claiming. Any issues are in server and software performance, which should be addressed and fixed. Jack Merridew 08:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When the article was promoted to FA status, it had no templates in it, and the ref style was consistent so far as I can see. Not the way I'd write refs, but consistent and containing the relevant information. But instead of thanking me for tidying the refs and restoring the consistency, you're complaining that I removed the templates that had been added, and that suggests to me that it's templates you wanted for some reason, not consistency. But regardless of formatting issues, there's no reason for this article to be so poorly sourced, no matter how typical it is for these types of bios. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 08:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)↓↓ If you go back far enough, most articles will not have had citation templates in them, as the templates would not have existed. They're a more recent development; go far enough, and you'll find no references. Yes, I'm advocating for template usage; the more the better, the fancy ones. I'm a developer, I see them as the future. They are. You're coming at this from the wrong perspective. It's the templates, automated tools, and much, much more, that will raise the bar on all sorts of core goals. Looks at the CC articles; I'll say this for those articles: they use good referencing mechanisms, from what I've peeked at. I said the other things you did were 'fine', it's appreciated, so thanks; but the old-style refs are regressive, and should be deprecated. In many cases, editors will be still adding them. And others should be upgrading them. Jack Merridew 09:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But this one had a consistent style. Whoever started adding the templates introduced the inconsistency. But the referencing style here is now fine, so this is not the right place to discuss the broader issue. Please look at the page I linked to with the explanation of why the templates slow things down. Here's another one that was packed full of templates until recently. Try opening a diff from that April 20 version, or go back to that point and try a preview; it had reached the point where it could hardly be edited. Now try the current version without the templates. It's much faster. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 09:22, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

←The issue of page clutter and ease of editing is important, however citation templates need not adversely affect this. List-defined references are a good thing; it is clearly easier to edit a page if the reference is just called as a named reference rather than explicitly included within the text of the article.

Compare

Thurman began her career as a fashion model at age 15,<ref>"Uma on Men, Movies and Motherhood", ''Harper's Bazaar'', March 1998.</ref> and signed with the agency Click Models. Her modeling credits included Glamour Magazine.<ref name=biochannel>[http://www.thebiographychannel.co.uk/biography_story/882:1170/1/Uma_Thurman.htm "Uma Thurman Biography"], Biography Channel, accessed August 16, 2010.</ref> ...

with

Thurman began her career as a fashion model at age 15,<ref name="harpers" /> and signed with the agency Click Models. Her modeling credits included Glamour Magazine.<ref name="biochannel" /> ...

and the actual content of the named references within the {{reflist}}. This cannot be thrashed out on a page-by-page basis, but it does need sorting. pablo 08:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They mean you can't see what the source is when you're editing if the full cite isn't even in there once. But the article didn't use them anyway, Pablo. It used full in-text templates. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 09:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just use the full-page edit link; I usually edit whole pages. You can use multiple tabs, too. And absent WP:LDR , the actual ref is likely to be in some other section, anyway, if it's used more than once. LDR are great; I support their use in most all cases. Did I make the book analogy with you? Footnotes in books have a number in the prose, and the actual footnote is at the bottom, kinda like ref sections are at the bottom. A book would be a mess if all the footnotes were inline. Ick ;) Jack Merridew 09:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jack, do you do a lot of content editing, FA writing, that kind of thing, particularly with long articles? I can tell you that templates are a menace if you do, and the more you have, the slower the load time, and the more clutter there is -- or the more hunting around for refs if they're all at the end. Usually the editors who like templates are the ones who don't write whole articles, or long ones. There are exceptions to that, but I've noticed it's a pattern. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 09:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Slim, I do a lot of content editing and I have the Oxygen toxicity FA to my credit, along with GAs in the field of scuba-related medicine. All of them have a considerable number of cite templates in them, and I agree they are slower to load than small articles. I'm very interested in hearing if you have severe loading problems with that FA, for example, because it would mean we need to address the problem with the developers. I should add that I'm disappointed that you decided to remove the cite templates here while discussion was ongoing. It would appear to be contrary to the opinions given above by four editors, and you know as well as I do that resolution of differences is not best done by fait accompli by one person. You're a better Wikipedian than that, and understand the importance of cultivating consensus before acting. Nevertheless, this issue won't go away, for the reason which has already become apparent: random editors will add cite templates because of the clear ethos that they should be used, and you can't go around the entire 'pedia pruning out cite templates as fast as they are added. Far better would be to work to solve whatever problems of slow loading exist. As an afterthought, it's pure joy to have two windows side-by-side with a section open in one and all the references open in the other – list defined references are the way to go, whether you use cite templates or not. --RexxS (talk) 16:13, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article had more refs without templates than with, so introducing consistency meant removing the templates, and that's what we should do anyway per CITE. There was no need to add them to refs that were already there. And yes, Oxygen toxicity is very slow to load for me. I would have known by the load time that it had citation templates in it had you not told me. It appears to have 125 templates in it, so I imagine doing diffs and preview is slow. I can't edit articles like that anymore. I find the templates are a real access problem, both in terms of load time, and also in terms of editing when they're inside the text like that. It's a problem we've had for years, but we've never been able to get anyone technical to take it seriously with a view to fixing it, if it can be fixed (the load time issue).

I don't know where you see a clear ethos to use templates, Rex. CITE is the governing guideline and it says don't add them against consensus because they're contentious. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:23, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The idea of counting the number of occurrences of a particular style to determine which should be preferred is attractive, but has no basis in policy. It's been rejected in discussions about dmy/mdy, BC/BCE, and us-en/gb-en in favour of "first major contributor" as the tie-breaker. However, I disagree that such a formula is appropriate in deciding between cite templates and manually written references, since I believe that using cite templates is an improvement to an article; many start articles won't use templates, and forbidding their introduction would fossilise what a I consider to be an inferior practice. I do understand that you won't agree with me on those points, but many others will.

My impression of a clear ethos is just that: an impression from working around the 'pedia. Since you query it, I just checked my impression by examining a sample of articles from the FA list (assuming that our best articles represent best practice) and every single one that I looked at used cite templates. I'm not saying every FA does or should use them, just that my impression is that there is an underlying assumption that using templates is preferable to manual citing.

We seem to have a difference in ethos about CITE as well. A guideline should be documenting what is done, and it is clear that many editors change manual refs to cite templates. The guidance in CITE, therefore, does not enjoy the same degree of consensus as we would wish, and needs attention. I think the ArbCom decision in WP:ARBDATE#Manual of Style speaks to this issue, and I'd like to work with you to make improvements, where possible.

Finally, I'm sensitive to issues of accessibility, and I agree it would be crazy to push ahead with more use of cite templates if it meant that larger articles (particularly our best articles) become inaccessible to readers. Given all the other reasons advanced for using templates, do you have any other objection than the slow load times? If not, then I can see that improvements in server/coding performance are a real priority and have to be addressed. --RexxS (talk) 17:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are articles that literally take minutes to load for me, and nowadays I just give up when I see them not appearing, and I move on, because I know the reason, and I know I won't be able to edit them anyway. This situation gives a false impression to the writers about the number of readers they have. They check wikistats and see 4,000 hits a month, and don't realize that for many—how many we don't know—the page just isn't loading, but it counts as a hit anyway. Good luck with trying to get anyone to take this seriously. I've had people tell me it's only me that this is happening to, and that it must be my computer or my preferences etc. But since the template problems started on WP, I've regularly used three desktops, and assorted laptops, and two different kinds of operating systems (Mac OS and Windows). I've also had my preferences in various states, including the default. The one constant is that I can't easily open pages with lots of citation templates in them. See some technical explanations here, and some examples here.

The second issue is that when long templates are used in-text, as opposed to only in a references section, the articles can't easily be copy edited, so they're often poorly written. I can spot by the writing style when there are lots of in-text templates. It's often a staccato style, poor flow, because it can be hard to see where one sentence ends and another begins, so the writing suffers and no one is able to copy edit. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An example from your own article. Is it fair to ask people to edit this?

Oxidative damage may occur in any cell in the body but the effects on the three most susceptible organs will be the primary concern. It may also be implicated in red blood cell destruction ([[hemolysis]]),<ref name="pmid5782651">{{cite journal |last1=Goldstein |first1=JR |last2=Mengel |first2=CE |title=Hemolysis in mice exposed to varying levels of hyperoxia |journal= Aerospace Medicine |volume=40 |issue=1 |pages=12–13 |year=1969 |pmid=5782651}}</ref><ref name="pmid4403030">{{cite journal |last1=Larkin |first1=EC |last2=Adams |first2=JD |last3=Williams |first3=WT |last4=Duncan |first4=DM |title=Hematologic responses to hypobaric hyperoxia |journal=American Journal of Physiology |volume=223 |issue=2 |pages=431–7 |year=1972 |pmid=4403030}}</ref> damage to liver ([[hepatic]]),<ref name="pmid5885427">{{cite journal |last1=Schaffner |first1=Fenton |last2=Felig |first2=Philip |title=Changes in hepatic structure in rats produced by breathing pure oxygen |journal= Journal of Cell Biology |volume=27 |issue=3 |pages=505–17 |year=1965 |pmid=5885427 |pmc=2106769 |url=http://jcb.rupress.org/cgi/reprint/27/3/505.pdf |format=PDF |doi= 10.1083/jcb.27.3.505}}</ref> heart ([[myocardial]]),<ref name="pmid5046798">{{cite journal |last1=Caulfield |first1=JB |last2=Shelton |first2=RW |last3=Burke |first3=JF |title=Cytotoxic effects of oxygen on striated muscle |journal=Archives of Pathology |volume=94 |issue=2 |pages=127–32 |year=1972 |pmid=5046798}}</ref> [[endocrine system|endocrine]] glands ([[adrenal gland|adrenal]], [[gonad]]s, and [[thyroid]]),<ref name="pmid13228600">{{cite journal |last1=Bean |first1=JW |last2=Johnson |first2=PC |title=Adrenocortical response to single and repeated exposure to oxygen at high pressure |journal=American Journal of Physiology |volume=179 |issue=3 |pages=410–4 |year=1954 |pmid=13228600}}</ref><ref name="pmid13889254">{{cite journal |last1=Edstrom |first1=JE |last2=Rockert |first2=H |title=The effect of oxygen at high pressure on the histology of the central nervous system and sympathetic and endocrine cells |journal=Acta Physiologica Scandinavica |volume=55 |pages=255–63 |year=1962 |pmid=13889254 |doi=10.1111/j.1748-1716.1962.tb02438.x}}</ref><ref name="Gersh">{{cite journal |last1=Gersh |first1=I |last2=Wagner |first2=CE |title=Metabolic factors in oxygen poisoning |journal=American Journal of Physiology |year=1945 |volume=144 |issue=2 |pages=270–7}}</ref> or kidneys ([[renal]]),<ref name="pmid5155150">{{cite journal |last1=Hess |first1=RT |last2=Menzel |first2=DB |title=Effect of dietary antioxidant level and oxygen exposure on the fine structure of the proximal convoluted tubules |journal=Aerospace Medicine |volume=42 |issue=6 |pages=646–9 |year=1971 |pmid=5155150}}</ref> and general damage to [[cell (biology)|cells]].<ref name="Brubakk-358-360" /><ref name="pmid4613232">{{cite journal |last=Clark |first=John M |title=The toxicity of oxygen |journal=American Review of Respiratory Disease |volume=110 |issue=6 Pt 2 |pages=40–50 |year=1974 |pmid=4613232}}</ref>

SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the links you provided to prior discussions, Slim, and I must say I'm particularly impressed by Eubulides' analysis, version CITE vs version VCITE, which I find compelling. I've read all the discussions (it took hours) and can see your problem much more clearly now. I'd tend to agree with Masem in Why this matters – we actually do need a mediawiki solution.

As for the clutter caused by inline references (whether manual or templated), I agree that it's a problem. I don't actually own Oxygen toxicity <grin I know you didn't mean that>, but the article was a nightmare to edit; as you quite rightly point out, the inline references are appalling. It was of course before LDRs were implemented, and I'd love to find the time to convert that article to LDRs and then copyedit it. Perhaps someone will invent a bot to do the first part for me? If it's any help, you can look at my last GA, Decompression sickness, which uses LDR throughout. It still takes 10 sec for the server to render the uncached full page, but editing is much easier even if I have to have two windows open (section and refs), and the prose in the edit box is now readable. Of course, the use of LDR is an independent issue from using cite templates, and from your !vote in the RfC, I see you concur. Thanks again for taking the time to debate these issues with me, and apologies to the regular readers of Uma Thurman, who may think that hosting the discussion here could be seen as a little off-topic. Regards --RexxS (talk) 20:46, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And thank you, Rexx, for being so thorough in reading all that background material. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion linked from WT:FN. This article's references look adequately consistent, and the page also loads quite swiftly. I see no good reason to change the citation system here. Gimmetoo (talk) 06:50, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That picture is HARSH.[edit]

Wow. Could there be a worse picture of her? It looks like she just spent the night doing drugs and had nothing to wear except for something out of Prince reject pile. 174.25.84.194 (talk) 21:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you a better recent photo you have taken yourself? We can only use photos that photographers donate to Wikipedia. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 22:07, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, by all means, has anyone taken a picture of Ms. Thurman when she's NOT wearing a rat's nest upon her head? Doubledragons (talk) 22:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've swapped it for another, but I actually liked the previous one. There's another in that same series that might be better, so I'll take a look around for it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:02, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's one's a million times better and it doesn't inspire laughter like the other one. We'll save the lulz for Encyclopedia Dramatica. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doubledragons (talk • contribs) 01:37, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Protecting an article about a famous person and, thereby, the person, from harm.[edit]

Given the tendency to vandalism of this article in the past, I want to draw attention to a recent news report.

There's no mention in the article of this kind of thing happening to Ms Thurman in the past. But I have read elsewhere that a man was found guilty in 2008 of stalking Ms Thurman over a period of years. Today, November 30 2010, a news report claims that he has violated the "don't contact her, etc" conditions of his parole in a very obvious way, including using the internet. He is now under arrest pending extradition to New York for his actions.

However "celebrities" might bask in public acclaim, etc, they do not ask for this kind of attention and if we adhere to WP standards, we should not allow ourselves to unwittingly facilitate such activity.

I wonder if it's appropriate for those who have suffered stalkers etc. to have their profiles protected from vandalism in some way, such as not allowing people who don't register a bona fide profile to edit articles that are about them? It has been done for other individuals before now. And, as I hinted, WP declares a desire to not render famous people subject to certain things from articles. By taking some precautions to limit vandalism of this article, we remove one way that the person might become a victim. I believe it should be done. (Yes, I am not logged on myself. But the point is still valid) 72.155.201.9 (talk) 05:16, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to have this article protected from vandals by only allowing registered editors to edit the page. --BwB (talk) 08:59, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was no suggestion at his arrest that Mr Jack Jordon ever tried to contact Ms Thurman via the Internet. He was interviewed by Police Officers in Maryland making enquiries into a number of Telephone calls to Ms Thurman's Office and personal Cell Phone; (T.M.Z. online).92.40.121.84 (talk) 11:38, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism or no Citation?[edit]

I noticed it says on the page of movies Uma Thurman has starred in, it claims of a "Kill Bill Volume 3".
Now, I am a huge Fan of the series and such, but I was more or less sure it was complete?
Could We find some sort of source confirming this, or remove it if this is simply a Vandal getting or hopes up?
Thank you,
Mr Ip 96.42.198.2 (talk) 01:01, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2011 picture[edit]

Repeated attempts to have picture taken down, because I am accused of spamming wikipedia with advertising because I have my name attached to this picture, and that part of her arm is blocking her face. The alternative is an older picture from a decade ago. Jiyangc (talk) 14:07, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are the photographer who has repeatedly added your own image to this article and your name in the caption against the MOS. Now that you have stopped spamming your name, we can address why the image is a poor fit for this article. The image that you keep adding to the infobox appears to the right of this comment. Notice how her right arm is blocking the right side of her face and appears to be growing out of her chin. That is simply not acceptable and I do not understand why you keep adding it other than to promote your photography. Please stop. We have many alternatives to your photos and no good reason as to why you keep adding it. You say it is "current", but it wouldn't matter if you had taken it one second ago, we do not need a photograph of Uma Thurman with her arm blocking her face. Viriditas (talk) 14:17, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not only is the 2011 photograph more current, it also has better lighting, a less cluttered background, a more attractive expression and appears less grainy at a reasonable infobox size. Her sleeve blocks a small portion of her face – her chin – but still manages to make her look more beautiful than the 2000 Cannes photo. (Actually, the same is true of the other removed photo in which she is resting her chin on her hand – a common pose for professionally photographed models.)

Spamming? A relatively new editor/photographer added an image with his name credited in the caption. Another editor deleted that portion of the caption without any edit summary or explanation, and the contributor restored it. Once. An hour or so later, I re-deleted the name from the caption with an edit summary referencing the relevant guideline, and the contributing editor let it stand. One reversion of an unexplained deletion two weeks ago hardly qualifies as "repeatedly added ... your name in the caption against the MOS". Then, after the new image had been in the infobox for just short of three weeks without challenge, it and two other, longer standing, images were removed without discussion for reasons appearing to consist of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Unless a clearly superior image (certainly not the 2000 Cannes one) can be found, I think the Jiyangc image should be restored to the infobox. Even if not in the infobox, both it and the image removed from the "Family background" section merit inclusion someplace in the article. (I don't feel strongly either way about the absurdly bowdlerized Tarantino picture, since he is not the subject of the article.) Fat&Happy (talk) 16:42, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is not correct. The editor in question has been here since July 2010,[3] and while they have made only 86 edits during that time, their only purpose on Wikipedia is to upload their photos and add their name to the infobox, and they have edit warred over this in multiple articles at least five times,[4], [5], [6], and they have tried to force their photographs into many different articles,[7], [8] with the worst of it occurring on Lunar eclipse where they tried to force their image of the moon into the article while it was a featured picture candidate. On the Ben Stiller article they forced an image of the subject that makes him look like an undead zombie into the lead, where it currently remains. This has been going on for a year even though the edits are few and far in between. As for the current image, you say it is current and has better lighting and overall composition, but if you did not know who Uma Thurman was, one wouldn't be able to recognize her with what looks like an elbow blcoking her face. In biographical articles, we use images that the best represent the subject. You claim this image makes her attractive and beautiful, but that is your subjective opinion, and I personally see nothing attractive about looking at a big elbow. Your mileage may vary. Objectively, her face is blocked and identification is difficult. We want an image of the subject that is clearly identifiable and shows her from the front or the side. You also say that the other photograph, where she rests her chin on her hand resembles a professional pose. It does nothing of the kind. For such a pose, see the Ben Stiller image I've attached to the left. That's a professional photograph; the one you refer to is not in any way. It's amateurish and does not show the subject in the best light. You say that you don't find the Cannes Red Carpet 2000 image attractive, and I respect your opinion, but this photo shows Uma Thurman "unplugged", turning for the camera with a shy smile on her face as her hair blows around her. You may not like the photo or its quality, but it is less of a pose and more of a natural capture, and it clearly identifies the subject. However, I am not attached to any photograph. I just want the subject to be identified in the best way possible. So, let's look at what image the 54 other wikis are using and choose the most common one. We can all agree that if 54 wikis have chosen to use one image over another, then there is probably a good reason and we should follow suit. Viriditas (talk) 23:20, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I'm really not trying to promote a photography business on Wikipedia. I am a musician foremost and I do a bit of photography on the side, mostly as a hobby. I tried to credit my picture in the captions and did not in any way try linking to a website. However, I do believe Uma looks more flattering than the Cannes version, and my repeated and futile attempts at preventing my picture from being removed is for this reason. Spamming? You've got to be kidding me. Jiyangc (talk) 19:19, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lesson: Using Wikipedia for self-promotion won't be tolerated. That said, I would be glad to see those Cannes images go. The one in question IS a better photo, and so is the Tribeca one. As for Tarantino, he has his own page. Gaohoyt (talk) 17:24, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are we looking at the same photos? I'm looking at a photo of Uma wearing a blue top with a white jacket, with what appears to be her arm blocking her face, making it look like her arm was amputated and all that left is a stump. How is this superior to any photo we have of her? It isn't. Also, this is not the first time the photographer in question has uploaded bad photos of celebrities, so this is part of a wider pattern. I have no objection to another image being used, but this one has got to go. It is not representative of the subject at all and makes it difficult if not impossible to identify her. Viriditas (talk) 23:20, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kill Bill in the lead[edit]

I think Kill Bill should be mentioned as one of her notable roles in the lead. It's certainly more of a notable role than Hysterical Blindness. Plus, in this article it reads: "Her next film was Tarantino's Kill Bill, which relaunched her career." It did relaunch her career and deserves a mention. Let Me Eat Cake (talk) 16:40, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was her most widely-seen movie. Someone could check the box office figures and confirm this. Gaohoyt (talk) 19:58, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Counting Box office gross for both volumes, it even beats Pulp Fiction. I only realized now that Hysterical Blindness was a little HBO miniseries. In what universe does this user think it's not important. Screw it, I'm putting Kill Bill in the lead. It is undeniably her second most recognizable role, maybe even her most recognizable role. Let Me Eat Cake (talk) 21:50, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Parents bio in family section[edit]

I removed the bios of her parents. Maybe add a little more material in the already established early life section, but no need for that level of detail on parents, they already have their own articles that are linked. --Malerooster (talk) 01:44, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Uma Thurman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:01, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Uma Thurman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:27, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Uma Thurman. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060716135030/http://www.newsmeat.com/celebrity_political_donations/Uma_Thurman.php to http://www.newsmeat.com/celebrity_political_donations/Uma_Thurman.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:08, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]