Talk:Anjelica Huston

Picture
The picture we her now is tiny and of terrible quality; does anyone have a better one? --DearPrudence 23:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. The picture is cropped oddly and Anjelica is barely recognizable.  Does anyone have a free image available that could be used? Rs09985 (talk) 03:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I am looking at various pictures of her and OMG; I cannot believe what has happened to her over the years. Here is a bunch of pictures. I am sure that someone could pick a real good one. https://search.aol.com/aol/image;_ylt=AwrFAKmopU5mvCwOlDNpCWVH;_ylu=Y29sbwNiZjEEcG9zAzEEdnRpZAMEc2VjA3BpdnM-?q=ANJELICA+HUSTON&s_it=searchtabs&v_t=loki-tb-sb#id=87&iurl=https%3A%2F%2Fi.pinimg.com%2Foriginals%2Fda%2Fd1%2F7f%2Fdad17f0350d8d51e884a6a707ef98cb4.jpg&action=close --Nosehair2200 (talk) 02:16, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Name
Why is she listed as Anjelica Houston in Wikipedia? The usual spelling seems to be Huston. See 130.73.65.53 (talk) 14:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment re Polanski
I've removed: "She was present in Jack Nicholson's mansion during Roman Polanski's rape of a 13 year old girl." As things stand this seems to be undue. There are no claims that she knew what was happening, only that she was in the same house, and saw the girl that Polanski raped after the event. The news reports are not suggesting that she had any involvement, and she is only quoted in regard to her view that the girl looked older than 13, her perception of the girl's demeanor, and her personal opinion on Polanski. None of which is notable in terms of Huston's life. While of some general interest, it doesn't seem to be significant enough to be worth including, and doing so gives the false impression that she may have, in some way, been involved or have known of what was going on. - Bilby (talk) 15:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You're engaging in OR. It's been a notable event for 30 years, and reported in every nation on earth. The notability is conferred by that world wide reporting over more than a quarter of a century. It was widely reported then and now. Its notability is without question.99.141.254.118 (talk) 16:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure it isn't OR to consider the weight of something added to an article. It is of note in terms of the crime by Polanski. Should there be an article fully exploring this issue, then it should certainly be mentioned. It is not, however, of particular note in relation to a biography on Huston. The claim, as I understand it, is only that she was in the same house where a crime was committed and, not knowing what had happened, spoke to the victim after. That's it. Not that she was involved, nor that she allowed it to happen, or knew what was happening, or anything of significance. She was an unknowing bystander. - Bilby (talk) 16:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, OR. It's notable because it's been associated with her for over a quarter of a century and reported around the world. Hell, Jack Nicholson wasn't even there and his name is also deeply interwoven with it as well. At this point it may have even been reported, between 1977 and today, in every single news outlet in the US at least once - certainly in every western language and likely in one form or another on every nation on Earth.
 * It's a text book notable. Every bit of it, him, her, location, incident. It's an international cause célèbre.99.141.254.118 (talk) 16:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The question is whether or not it is a particularly notable part of Huston's life, of Polanski's, or simply of the event. I think it was of the event. Certainly, in what is a disappointingly short bio of a fairly significant actor, it looks like it has been given undue weight. If, as I suspect there will be, there is an article created covering the crime, then it becomes a very important part of that article. I just don't think it is an important part of this one. Anyway, I'll stop now and see if other opinions emerge. - Bilby (talk) 16:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If it weren't notable the worlds press wouldn't have reported it as such for the last 30 years...99.141.254.118 (talk) 17:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Additional evidence of its notability from the dozens of books which prominently mention it: "In terms of his sexual tastes, Polanski, Huston told the cop, "Was a freak"." This book also states that Polanski was taken by the DA and Police to Nicholsons home after he stated the girls accusation was "all a lie" only to have Huston torpedo him when she failed to back up his story. There exist numerous books discussing the subject. Books about the Huston family, Nicholson, Crime, Cinema - all manner of titles (in addition to nearly every newspaper, magazine and TV channel) find it notable to mention Anjelica Huston in relation to the incident. I've re-added the entry based upon these references.99.141.254.118 (talk) 17:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm concerned that you seem to have missed my point. It's the "in relation to the incident" that worries me. Sure, Huston's presence is notable in relation to the incident, but possibly not in relation to her life. And this article is about her life, not about the incident. Still, I'll raise it on WP:BLP/N and see where others sit. - Bilby (talk) 17:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The book about her family even mentions it. Do you think that her biography mentions it? [ http://www.amazon.com/Anjelica-Huston-Lady-Her-Legacy/dp/B00276A5K0 ] And do you think that would be relevant?99.141.254.118 (talk) 18:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, it may be, but I still think it is undue in the article as it stands, especially as the statement, as presented now, doesn't provide any context, and adding context to prevent misinterpretation may cause serious weight issues. If it was more important I can see a reason for that, but I don't see it as important enough to warrant the problems it may cause. Anyway, I'll go with an RfC instead, as it may be a simpler solution. :) - Bilby (talk) 18:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Huston & Polanski
In regard to the addition of:


 * She was present in Jack Nicholson's mansion during Roman Polanski's rape of a 13 year old child.

(See Roman Polanski for background). The statement is properly sourced to CNN, and there is no question that she was in the mansion. Huston's involvement seems to be that she was present in the building when the event took place, but she was not aware of what occurred, either before, during or immediately after the event. However, she is included in discussions on the grounds that she was in the house and she spoke to the girl concerned after the event (but remained unaware at the time as to what had transpired), and, as per the CNN article, subsequently described her impressions of the girl and Polanski.

As outlined above, my concern is that the current bio of Angelica Huston is very short, and that including this line gives undue weight to her involvement in the event, as well as leaving her presence open to possible misinterpretation. I see it as notable in terms of the event, but not sufficiently notable in term's of Huston's life, as she only played a peripheral role in what happened.

On the other hand, another editor views this differently, and sees the reliable coverage of her presence at the event as establishing sufficient notability to include it in her article.

I can see the other editor's point, but I don't think this is necessarily a clear cut case. Thus other opinions would be valuable. :) - Bilby (talk) 18:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Page 150. "But the really vital corroborative evidence Gunson had was not physical. It was the testimony of Anjelica Huston who would place Polanski in the bedroom with the girl." Remember, Polanski initially denied everything when picked up the next morning by the DA and Police. It was Huston that supported the charges.

99.141.254.118 (talk) 18:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I still see that as notable in regard to the case, not Huston - or at least not sufficiently notable in relation to her to include in the article as it stands, given my concerns. But I'll step back for a bit, and I'll happily defer to any consensus. - Bilby (talk) 18:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll wait as well - but I do think being blamed in notable sources, and by Polanski, as being the person without who's testimony none of this could/would have occurred is one of many strong factors underscoring the strong notability of this incident in any overview of her life.99.141.254.118 (talk) 18:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I concur with Bilby. It leaves the impression, as written, of guilt by association.  It needs clean up.  Either expand the comment on the presence so it leaves no doubt but that she was not assisting in a crime, (which will probably lead to a similar outcome as what we have seen on the Polanski article), or take it out, rewrite the entirety of the personal life section to provide more information about the actress in all aspects, and resubmit.  I would recommend the latter.  Oberonfitch (talk) 18:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

There is a problem with the word choice of this sentence. It is not particularly relevant given its place in a relatively short article, too, but I consider that less of a problem. If a writer wants to write a longer article on Angelica Huston, then these sentences won’t stand out so strongly.

Back to word choice: Roman Polanski was not found guilty of rape nor did he plead guilty to rape. If Wikipedia wants to stick to the facts, then it should state that Angelica Huston was in the mansion during the incident when Roman Polanski had unlawful sex with thirteen-year-old Samantha Gailey. James Nicol (talk) 22:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment It is too strongly worded. We should not say anything more than the Roman Polanski article does, which is, 'He pleaded guilty to the lesser charge of engaging in unlawful sexual intercourse, a charge which is synonymous under Californian law with statutory rape'. Also the wording implies some complicity on Angela's part, which I understand is not being suggested here. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:59, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Specific discussion on Polanski/Huston prose
I've added this to the article:

Her on-and-off relationship with actor Jack Nicholson spanned from 1973 to 1990 and included an incident in which she became a witness for the prosecution at Roman Polanski's 1977 trial regarding the rape of a 13 year old girl[2] in Jack Nicholson's home. Her testimony, in which she arrived unexpectedly at the residence she had just recently shared with Nicholson, was used to place Polanski definitively in the bedroom with the victim.

Wiki'ed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.141.254.118 (talk) 19:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

This is Spinal Tap
Anjelica Huston played the gal who designed the 18" replica of Stonehenge in the movie "This is Spinal Tap" but her name wasn't in the credits. Source, Stuck in the 80's St. Petersburg Times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.60.224.226 (talk) 04:46, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Here's further proof

Huston, Angelica Plays the designer of the Stonehenge set, Polly Deutsch. Huston emerged from the shadows after Spinal Tap, starring in Prizzi's Honor (1985), The Dead (1987), Crimes and Misdemeanours (1989), The Grifters (1990) and The Addams Family (1991). Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2000/sep/22/film.film  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.0.0.253 (talk) 20:58, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Anjelica Huston. 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/20071012233504/http://www.uscampaignforburma.org:80/index.html to http://www.uscampaignforburma.org/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:19, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Anjelica Huston. 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/20140811103919/http://www.charlierose.com/watch/60307542 to http://www.charlierose.com/watch/60307542

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:26, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Gender
Come on, we all know 213.149.62.119 (talk) 18:05, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

ancestry
According to 'Finding Your Roots With Henry Louis Gates' ("Hollywood Royalty", from 2019), according to her DNA, she is 36.8% British & Irish, 18.7% French and German, 2.7% Ashkenzazi Jewish and only 9% Italian (which doesn't seem to make sense - I guess a good percentage of her Italian great-grandparents or so came from Germany and/or France; Ispra is near the border with France) Mayumashu (talk) 21:08, 14 July 2023 (UTC)