Talk:Claudia Cardinale

}}
 * blp=yes

"Tunisian actress"
Why "Tunisian"? Just because she was born there? Her mother was French, father was Italian (Sicilian). Cardinale is widely considered Italian actress. (Nothing personal, I am just for accuracy). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Betty kerner (talk • contribs) 17:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC) Because she was raised there, her mother was born and spent her entire life there, and she has spoken openly about her identity as part of the Italian Tunisian ethnic group. I had changed the article to reflect this and linked to the Italian Tunisians wiki page, but someone changed it back. I'm not going to bother wading into editing politics, but she was born in Tunisia, raised in Tunisia, identifies as a member of a demographic of Tunisia, speaks Arabic and has discussed Tunisia at length in the press. Make of that what you will. 2407:7000:8318:C471:B813:75FD:EC33:89A2 (talk) 10:51, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I've seen no evidence of her speaking Arabic. In fact on a German TV interview from 1964 (which can be found on YouTube), when asked what languages she speaks, she doesn't even mention Arabic and specifically identifies herself as Italian. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4dnvvV9LjM


 * IMHO, the way most people understand a person's nationality is first of all their citizenship. The fact that Cardinale was born in Tunisia and has memories of her upbringing in the Italian community there, does not mean she is a Tunisian. Otherwise anybody with a similar biography, but a different citizenship at birth or later in their lives would be mistaken for a national of the country where they were born. This obviously applies to millions of people, who are correctly attributed only to their citizenship. (See the categories on Wikimedia, for example.) So I am going to change this false citizenship as long as their is no RS to the contrary. Munfarid1 (talk) 19:32, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Cardin
Birthname is given as Cardin in article. Is there any supporting evidence for this, or is it an error? Orbicle 09:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

mustache women — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.7.193.46 (talk) 22:37, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

son Patrick
says the article: "Her son Patrick was born out of wedlock to a mysterious Frenchman when the actress was only 17" - it is known (and written in her book) that she was raped when she was 17 ! 84.227.134.78 07:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Personal comment about her voice
The following sentence regarding her voice will have to be sourced, please revert it then. "Despite her very feminine appearance, she had a deep voice (for a woman) from an early age, and in her early films she had her voice dubbed by someone else, but very soon her unique voice gained huge popularity and added to her success." KungFuMonkey 22:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:La ragazza di Bube1.jpg
The image File:La ragazza di Bube1.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:


 * File:Once-upon-a-time-in-the-west-charles-bronson-henry-fonda.jpg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --18:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The image is taken from the voice La ragazza di Bube (film) and it is: 1) allowed for critical commentary and discussion of the film and its contents on the English-language Wikipedia, 2)hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation. The same explanations are valid for File:Once-upon-a-time-in-the-west-charles-bronson-henry-fonda.jpg--Sabanglana (talk) 04:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

mistake in biography Claudia NOT in Falcon Crest....
Claudia did NOT appear in FALCON CREST.. That was Gina Lollobrigida in a few episodes.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.252.4.21 (talk) 09:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Birth date
Currently leaving the 1939 birthdate in - seems to be supported by BFI and Allmovie, arguably more reliable than IMDB which indicates 1938. Filmreference also claims 1938. Additional sources would be welcome here, especially Italian sites which meet WP:RS. Dl2000 (talk) 04:36, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Unless we find some official records it will be hard to know for sure (Is there an Italian birth index available?). Although her official site does say 1938. Crisso (talk) 23:18, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Filmography
She was in The Pink Panther and not A Shot in the Dark. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattmeskill (talk • contribs) 04:25, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Infobox
Oppose. I see no reason for one. The lead does an excellent job of summerising the key facts in a much more educational compared to a load of trivial old bullet points contained within the infobox.  Cassianto Talk   11:05, 30 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Much more attractive without it, such a nice image too.♦ Dr. Blofeld  13:33, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Support. I am a little OCD and so things that are inconsistent bug me. I could really go with or without but Wikipedia, as an entity, should not revolve around the appearance of one (this) article. Just looking at some of the other names mentioned on this page alone, all have info boxes. Sometimes a casual reader (not editor, concerned with style and layout) are actually looking for a specific fact. They know where to find these facts based on how other pages have trained them. See Gina Lollobrigida, Meryl Streep, Federico Fellini, and David Niven -- and that's cutting the list short. I would say either remove all infoboxes from Wikipedia for whatever logic Cassianto can use to justify a deviation from what appears to be a celebrity template or add an infobox to this article. -- S l i m J i m  Talk 09:06, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This is in my Sandbox

-- S l i m J i m  Talk 09:46, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That box is the most god awful fucking eyesore I have ever seen. You cannot be serious in thinking that that is a benefit to anyone?  Cassianto Talk   13:57, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

You've said it, OCD. Enough. BTW I also authored the Meryl Streep article and would also favour removing the infobox on that too but it's a high traffic article and can't be bothered to have to keeping reverting the zealots. We add infoboxes where they're of use to the reader, not for the sake of the furniture being consistent. ♦ Dr. Blofeld  09:54, 14 August 2015 (UTC)


 * So SlimJim, nothing relating to the guidelines or policies as to why an IB should be included, just your personal preference for consistency? If the "casual reader" wants to find a fact, it can probably be found in the lead, where it is presented in its proper context, and not with nuance stripped out. It's not too much to ask that when people visit a text-based encyclopaedia, they might actually have to read some of the text there. - SchroCat (talk) 11:06, 14 August 2015 (UTC)


 * We're all different. You and I look up information in different ways and differently depending on any number of variables. Sometimes I read entire articles. Sometimes I am just looking for a quick answer and don't want to wade through the well thought-out lead. It appears that this article has some ownership issues. If there's nothing in any guideline or policy as to why it should be included, I'm guessing that there is also nothing in there about why it should be excluded. --  S l i m J i m  Talk 11:37, 14 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Don't be so obnoxious as to throw around mindless insults like ownership allegations. I have never edited the article, so it's utterly churlish to throw around such accusations just because someone has a differing opinion to yours; your approach also fails WP:CIVILITY. - SchroCat (talk) 12:51, 14 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Then maybe Wikipedia isn't for you . If you want quick and easy factoids go and buy this.  Cassianto Talk   14:01, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

SlimJim, it's exactly this sort of thing which puts editors off wanting to promote things to FA and GA because every time the article appears on the main page some idiot comes along and kicks up a fuss over infoboxes. When they get the response "no thankyou" they start with the usual WP:OWN and WP:CIVIL arguments and things become unnecessarily unpleasant.♦ Dr. Blofeld  14:04, 14 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Oh, Lord! Another case of "if you oppose an info-box it's WP:OWN". How wearisome! Tangentially, I happen to be a carer for someone who has severe OCD, and I am comprehensively unimpressed by the suggestion that that condition has any relevance to IBs and the homogeneity of WP articles. I have a crippling phobic terror of heights, but I do not object to the use on WP of images taken from high buildings.  Tim riley  talk    14:33, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Wow, you guys really don't like an alternative opinion being voiced. Someone besides me started the section so I'm not the only one that thought of it. Read the first two responses to my initial edit. How does that comport with the five pillars? If I was a new editor, would I offer up an opinion contrary to the majority voice here? I've been editing since 2005. I thought the talk page was where things were hashed out. If you voiced an opinion here, reread it and see how you stand up. So keep it as it is, nobody would dare step up and offer an opinion or a solution that might include an IB (mine was an example, improve it) or not. Maybe I'll just stick with grammar and sentence structure. I do my part and I'm happy. -- S l i m J i m  Talk 15:09, 14 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I have absolutely no objection to alternative opinions: I do have an objection to people idiotically throwing OWNership allegations out (as you did) just because someone disagreed with your opinion. - SchroCat (talk) 16:42, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Quite;, to whom you are referring when you speak of incivility? Or is that like your flawed OWN accusation and just another cliche thing the supporter's in infobox discussions say when the going gets tough?    Cassianto Talk   16:58, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Picking through this section, let me make sure I get all the names. To Cassianto, Dr. Blofeld, SchroCat, Tim riley; please allow me to offer an olive branch in an attempt to quell this kerfuffle. If I have offended, I sincerely apologize. This issue is not worth disrupting the work that I enjoy doing here. I assume that each of you get satisfaction as well in what you do. I will take this as a lesson in that the tone has changed during the break I took from editing in the last few years. That is not meant as a criticism, it’s either my faulty recollection or just the way it is. -- S l i m J i m  Talk 06:03, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

SlimJim what you appear not to realize is that we have to put up with the same thing in dozens of articles throughout the year. It becomes a tedious bore, so that's why we might seem a little aggressive to you because it's another "OH NOT AGAIN" scenario, somebody trying to force an infobox.♦ Dr. Blofeld  07:14, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Nope, no offence taken . In discussions like this, my computer keypad is so used to typing  and  blah, blah, blah, that the lines are on auto complete.  Info boxes are great on certain articles and I rely on them when looking at film, political, sports, royal, and science articles.  But they simply don't work in biographies on persons within the arts, classical music, medical, and historical stories and events.  Everything and I mean everything within an infobox in these articles can be found in the lede, quite often within the first line or paragraph.  It is that kind of repetition which we must try and avoid. It really annoys me to think that people just assume articles like this must have an infobox simply because they believe that it is a consistency on Wikipedia as a whole.  Yes, that consistency is a sad reality at the moment, but it is completely wrong and hopefully one day, that'll change.    Cassianto Talk   14:11, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Does anyone realize that the infobox I just added is different from the infobox provided here? sst✈ 10:45, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * For which there is still no consensus. – SchroCat (talk) 11:04, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I came here to find out how old she was, and it'd be easier if I didn't have to work it out from her date of birth. I have slight dyscalculia and infoboxes that include a person's age make life a lot easier for me. 2.219.97.182 (talk) 20:17, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * There was no need to come to the WP page. Just a simple google search would provide you with that information on the results page. As that is obvious, and because I see this is your one and only edit, I suspect you have an ulterior motive.   Cassianto Talk   20:25, 4 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Oh dear, quite the amateur detective. This kind of thing reminds me why I don't edit more. It was my one and only edit from here, yes, because I'm not at home. I don't edit much, but this is my first port of call for information, not Google. I don't really see why that should suggest I have an ulterior motive. I see your attitude is that if someone doesn't find what they want on Wikipedia, they should just jog off and find it somewhere else. Well done, you. 2.219.97.182 (talk) 20:55, 4 October 2015 (UTC)


 * So you're a sock?  Cassianto Talk   21:54, 4 October 2015 (UTC)


 * A what? 2.219.97.182 (talk) 22:11, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. You think I'm someone from the above discussion who's now pretending to be someone else in order to be disruptive. Wow. She's 77, so I gather. I thought it might be easy to get that from a so-called encyclopedia but apparently I was engaging in subterfuge and covert disruption. Seriously, you folk are weird. 2.219.97.182 (talk) 22:26, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Claudia Cardinale. 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/20141008114358/http://www.festival-cannes.com/en/archives/ficheFilm/id/1188/year/1984.html to http://www.festival-cannes.com/en/archives/ficheFilm/id/1188/year/1984.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110822165413/http://www.festival-cannes.com/en/archives/ficheFilm/id/409/year/1987.html to http://www.festival-cannes.com/en/archives/ficheFilm/id/409/year/1987.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141022150439/http://www.festival-cannes.com/en/archives/ficheFilm/id/3167635/year/2002.html to http://www.festival-cannes.com/en/archives/ficheFilm/id/3167635/year/2002.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) 01:52, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Claudia Cardinale. 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/20150712010611/http://www.artfilmfest.sk/en/press/press-releases/press/claudia-cardinale-ive-lived-141-lives/7739c9afaa75edfc00030e0482a3ee6d/ to http://www.artfilmfest.sk/en/press/press-releases/press/claudia-cardinale-ive-lived-141-lives/7739c9afaa75edfc00030e0482a3ee6d/

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) 02:30, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Missing age
@SchroCat, could you please get the bio information to display Cardinale's age based on her birth date?

I added the InfoBox so the age would be displayed with her bio information. I was not aware the InfoBox was being endlessly debated here.

I'm not asking you re-add the InfoBox. Just show her current age with her bio information, like birthdate.

Thanks. Jeffrey Walton (talk) 08:38, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Infobox, again
I have reverted the recent addition of an infobox by an IP. I am doing this simply because there was previously consensus not to include a box, the primary contributors to the box did not want one, and while editors do not own articles and people should just be bold and do stuff, I can't help thinking that the purpose of this edit was not entirely based on an intrinsic desire to improve the article. If you're going to take bold actions, I'd like you to log in and be accountable for them. If you're worried about being personally attacked for simply adding an infobox, you have my sympathies - email me and we can discuss things.

I also want to make it clear that I have no objection to any editor in good standing re-adding the infobox back in, and my actions here are because of the way things have been done, not what. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  10:46, 18 September 2020 (UTC)