Talk:Famke Janssen/Archive 1

Measurements
Would someone be kind enough to convert her measurements, shoe size and height to worldwide-accepted and standard metric measures?
 * Imperial measurements are also "worldwide-accepted", for your information. But I shall convert them to metric units as well. -- Jalabi99 09:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * FYI, Jalabi99 - they are not. See SI Units.--User:CapFan

Question about her stage name
If she was born "Famke Beumer" and now goes by "Famke Janssen", and yet is currently unmarried, how come she goes by the name "Janssen"? Can anyone explain that? -- Jalabi99 09:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, she felt that her last name was too hard for others to pronounce, so she changed it from Beumer to Janssen. Too bad it's usually her first name that people find hard to pronounce. -- Diagram22

I think her name is pronounced: FĂM-kŭ. Is that right? Maybe someone more skilled in phonetic spelling should put that in the entry. --Jaden-Kun

Erm, Famke Janssen is her birth name. her sisters only chose to use their mother's maiden name. Deniserogue 16:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Jean Gray "Highly Coveted Role"
I know nothing about the X-Men, but "the highly coveted role of Jean Gray" smells a bit fan-crufty to me. Can someone provide a respectable cite to support that? Larry Dunn 20:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I know! "The highly coveted role of Jean Grey."? Coveted by whom? Probably by some obessesive lame Jean Grey fanatics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nosebutton (talk • contribs) 23:31, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Sections about the character Jean Grey
I think the section explaining the actions of Dr Jean Grey in the movie X-Men is superfluous, a reference to the article about the film should suffice. Adam S 16:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Trivia
It is suggested that all trivia sections either be incorporated into the article or deleted. See WP's trivia policy.
 * Height: 5' 11" (1.80 m)
 * Measurements: 36-24-36 (91-61-91 cm)
 * First name is pronounced "Fam-kuh" (the 'a' pronounced as in the word 'part')
 * Has two sisters, Antoinette Beumer (Director) and Marjolein Beumer (Actress)
 * Is the only one of her three sisters to keep her birth surname, Janssen. Sisters Marjolein and Antoinette chose to take the last name Beumer, the maiden name of their mother, after their parents divorced.
 * Famke's name means little girl in Frisian, the native language of the Dutch province Friesland
 * Provides the Dutch-language narration for the Studio Tram Tour at all Disney parks
 * Was married to writer/director Tod Williams from 1995 to 2000, son of architect Tod Williams
 * Has a brindle Boston Terrier named Licorice, with whom she frequently travels. Nikki88 00:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Ava Moore?
Who's Ava Moore? The bottom photo is her as ava moore. --AW 07:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * A character in the Nip/Tuck series. It was an important character, so important that, I can call the second season "The Ava Moore Season". THAT important. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Acetaminophen (talk • contribs) 17:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC).

Citizenship
Has she taken U.S. citizenship or is she a permanent resident? Badagnani (talk) 18:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Photo
Can't we find a better photo than that? I think she deserves a nice photo of her more recent look. Acetaminophen

I completely agree with you, and I have a very nice picture of her that I want to put up, but I don't know how to do it.. anyone want to help me? Reney.km

Speaking of a Photo, can we get one? 68.9.254.24 (talk) 01:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

how is there a photo of her dog but not her? crazyness! 66.30.14.154 (talk) 01:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I know! I was just going to type that. Why on earth is there a picture of her dog but not about the person who's article it is?Nosebutton (talk) 18:27, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Can we please get a nice pictue of Famke? Please? Nosebutton (talk) 18:35, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I viewed 007 Golden Eye the other night and ran across this page without a photo of Famke in her prime. I'll attempt to put one up that at least shows how she looked back in the 90's.

In popular culture
Blue Dog And Sponge Cake, a comedic band from Aurora, Colorado, created a song about Janssen.

Removed the preceeding claim and section. I question the notability of this band. The myspace page of the band is not a good reference in any case, it is not clear what the name of the song is and if that song is actually on their myspace page. For this to be reinstated a suitable source would need to be provided and someone would need to establish the notability of this band. -- Horkana (talk) 19:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Clarification Needed
Please note: The first line of the article gives Ms. Janssen's birth year as 1965 while the sidebar shows the year as 1964. The IMDB article cited as a source for the date of birth is unhelpful in that it contains the same discrepancy with the DOB listed one way in the DOB field and a different way in the short biography. Can someone who knows the actual year correct this? Regards. Anxbdog (talk) 12:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC) Stephen Simon


 * Date of Birth

Date of birth would seem simple enough but the article cites both IMDB and later a biographical profile from a site called film reference [www.filmreference.com/film/49/Famke-Janssen.html]. FilmReference.com says "born January 1, 1964 (some sources cite November 5, 1965)" which suggests they think January 1 is the more correct date. FilmReference.com also lists various periodicals from which the information is gathered, perhaps if editors have any of those periodicals or can find scans of them online we might be able to get a better source of her date of birth and find out which source is correct. -- Horkana (talk) 01:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

File:Jean Last Stand.jpg listed for non-free content review
I have started a discussion for File:Jean Last Stand.jpg at. Please feel free to discuss the use of the image in this article there. Aspects (talk) 00:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Vital statistics
Janssen is both a model and an actress. There is no infobox to express both of these at the same time, the Model turned Actress infobox was deleted. The model infobox does include a space for occupation "Actress" so it was flexible enough to cover most things. Switching to only the actress infobox excludes (deletes) her vital statics (mentioned in the previous talk page discussion under the heading Trivia). Modelling is a signficant and notable part of her professional career, choosing the actress infobox is the less informative choice for. The information is well cited, it comes from fashionmodeldirectory.com only I didn't feel the need to ugly up the infobox with citations after each and every line. There were many edits to this article from editors who wished to draw attention to her being unsually tall (at 6'2", that is taller than the average man). I was trying to satisfy the consensus of many edits by presenting this information in the best way possible. I welcome suggestions on how best to include the information in the article but deleting it is a poor option. I've seen some articles have more than one infobox and I could add a second infobox but it seems far better to have it all in just one infobox. -- Horkana (talk) 03:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Janssen is known for beign an actress more so than as a model so the actor infobox is the appropraite one to have in the article. The actor infobox has been used in the article for over two and a half years taking over for a generic infobox.  Only three sentences in her article talk about her modeling career, while the majority of the article is about her acting career.  Her height, hair color, eye color, measurements, dress size and shoe size are trivial information not related to her occupation as an actor.  If this information was not trivial and a reliable source could be found to reference the information, then the information can be added to the paragraph about her modeling career. Aspects (talk) 00:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You said there was no reliable source. As I said above fashionmodeldirectory.com is the source of the information. Many fashion model articles use it. The comments "fashionmodeldirectory.com" and "fmd" in the infobox were to explain this.
 * There were many edits (a rough consensus) to this article from editors who wished to draw attention to her being unusually tall (see also this very Talk page) and include her modelling statics. The use of the modelling infobox is a good faith effort to satisfy consensus. Editors were adding as a list or in other ugly ways, including the information avoids a lot of time and work spent reverting good faith edits adding this information in other less tidy ways.
 * It would be great if you would implement your suggestion to include the information as prose and expand her modelling career.
 * For readers there is no substantive visible difference between an Actor Infobox and a Model Infobox, but there is a difference in information. There is no combined Model Actress infobox or anymore the best available way to do this is to use the model infobox and include acting as her occupation. If there is consensus to require the use of the Actor infobox then I will use the next best option available and include the model infobox as a second infobox and we can see about improving and expand her the modelling information.
 * I never said there was no reliable source, I said "If this information was not trivial and a reliable source could be found to reference the information, then the information can be added to the paragraph about her modeling career." There is no consensus, let alone a rough consensus, found here on the talk page or in edits since the information is no longer found in the article.  If you feel the information is not trivial, then you should be the one adding it to the article.  The consensus is to use the actor infobox since it has been used here for over two and a half years and until there is a consensus found here to change it to the model infobox, it should stay and it should be the only infobox in the article.  Two infoboxes are pointless and I do not believe I have ever seen two used in one biographical article. Aspects (talk) 02:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Her eyes is not black or amber or violet. Her eyes is brown. Her hair is not brown or auburn or red. Her hair is black.--4.242.174.202 (talk) 12:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Hair dye, contact lenses, and trick photography, you cannot know just by looking. The information matches what is listed at the FashionModelDirectory profile for Jensen. If you have reasons to doubt the accuracy of that source and can provide other sources that are more likely to be true please add them. -- Horkana (talk) 13:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) To Horkana: Way to start a discussion on here, when I do not agree with you, you stop discussion and then do exactly what you wanted to without a consensus. You found a reliable source for her height, anything else found in the model infobox is trivial information that is not needed in the article. Because this second infobox has failed to gain consensus here, I am going to delete it from the article. Aspects (talk) 05:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You suggested no other way to include information that had been added to the article on many occasions, and previously discussed on this talk page by others which amounts to more of an ongoing rough consensus than your objection to using the Model infobox or using two infoboxes.
 * I explained repeatedly the data and vital statistics is sourced from the Fashion Model directory (FMD) and there were comments in the source to that effect too but I saw no need to pedantically cite that information over and over again, when it is included prominently in the External links section.
 * The article for Pamela Anderson is just one example of an article having more than one infobox, I mentioned it in the edit summary I think. There are others. Your changing of the infobox type from Model to Actress fails to support the additional information was an unconstructive edit and I have tried to be flexible but you have only been blocking. Using the Model infobox is the better way to do this but I was trying to accommodate your edit and take it in good faith but switching back to Template:Infobox_Model is so much simpler and cleaner than any alternative your instance on using the Actor infobox lacks any consensus and is little more better than a deletion. -- Horkana (talk) 13:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I did suggest another way the information could be included and even quoted it myself. You seem to be putting words in my mouth instead of actually reading what I wrote.  The only discussion of this measurement information was in a trivia section that either needed to be incorporated into the article or deleted and since the information was not incorporated into the article, it was deleted.  I do not see how you can claim use this to claim there is a rough consensus, which does not exist in WP:CONSENSUS.  Actually, there would be consensus of not including the information if some users have tried adding it to the article and other users have removed it.  Using Pamela Anderson's article smacks of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but that would actually work against you because the vast majority of biographical infoboxes only have one infobox.


 * I suggest you actually read though WP:BRD because it is up to you to convince other people that your edits are valid after they have been challenged and then gain a consensus. You have either writen something in here and changed it without any discussion actually taking place or you get some discussion and then totally ignore it. Only using the Actor infobox has consensus since it has been used in the article over two and a half years, Janssen is known for being an actress and there has not been a consensus here not to use it.  You are also violating WP:CANVASSING by only trying to get people that added this information into the article and that would be likely to agree with you.  I am going to look for a real third opinion at WP:3O. Aspects (talk) 06:35, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

(Disclaimer: A Third Opinion has been requested in connection with this article or talk page. Although I sometimes act as a Third Opinion Wikipedian, I am participating in this article as just another editor and not as a a Third Opinion Wikipedian or under the guidelines set out at WP:3O, even though my participation may well result in the 3O Paradox.) I'm not offering a Third Opinion because I have some prior history with both Horkana (here) and with Aspects (here) and my personal standards as a 3O Wikipedian disqualify me from doing so. This is, therefore, just my opinion as another editor. If this is really just a dispute about which infobox to use — though I don't think that it is just that — then my recommendation would be to use infobox instead of either of them and just include all the information that you both want in there. My suspicion is, however, that the real dispute is over whether to include or exclude the additional physical–description information that the model infobox includes (it being otherwise the same as the actor infobox, at least in this case). I don't think that there's a right or wrong here; considering the nature of fame as an actor, I don't find the additional information necessarily inappropriate, but if I was forced to choose between them, however, I'd choose the actor infobox since the subject is currently an actor, not a model. What I do think is that this would be a good situation to leave whichever one is in place right now, drop the stick, and move on to something more productive. Best regards,  T RANSPORTER M AN  ( TALK ) 18:42, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The article was reverted against my third opinion by Horkana. It'd be proper to open to Request for Comments if he doesn't agree with my Third opinion. Thanks, SmokingNewton (talk) 16:01, 5 March 2010 (UTC).

Because I don't have a dog in this hunt, and don't care which infobox finally sticks, I feel free to warn you both that I will ask for page protection here if this continues to turn into a slow–motion edit war. Ask for a WP:RfC, take it to WP:MedCab, flip a coin, or do something else, but settle it here on this talk page, not in article space.  T RANSPORTER M AN  ( TALK ) 16:28, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * My apologies to Smoking Newton, Aspects made the revert and I had not at the time seen your opinion. If the revert had been made by someone a third party I would have considered it more cautiously and not taking it as blocking behavior. I try to work on article and find information that has been deleted when a citation should have requested first or the information cleaned up and that is how my edits here started. I would be far more willing to accept a deletion on good faith from an editor who had been making any changes to otherwise improve the article beside removing mine. The amount of effort required to add or get something included compared to the low standard someone else has to put in to block or exclude non-controversial information is one of the most off-putting things about Wikipedia.
 * There used to be a model/actress infobox which would have avoided this issue entirely, but it was deprecated and the model infobox allows for other careers to be listed so it is the most practical and whereas the Actress infobox does not allow this information. The only thing excluded by not using the Actress infobox would be if you wanted to make note of the awards she has won (not many) directly in the infobox. I would very much like to read up on how to use a generic infobox properly. That is the kind of constructive suggestion I was looking for.
 * Just to address the 3rd opinion, as you can see from the article it is not a simple question of how notable Janssen was as a model, but also she has been noted for being unusually tall. Again if you review older versions of the article her stats had been included several times (showing there is a rough consensus of editors who'd like to put it in the article) and I would assert that it simply has not been presented well enough and that most editors don't object to the information being presented in some form or another. I made good faith efforts to suggest other ways to present the information which the editor rejected.
 * I would be interested to read additional opinions and if this is to be reverted it should be a 3rd party to make the change. -- Horkana (talk) 00:12, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, I get what you're saying, and I don't really care which box is on the article page while we discuss this. We can decide on the talk page, and even if it took a week, then we can change the article. I won't dress it up as a complex arguement or an appeal to policies; I will just lay out what I think. I think that given that the actress appeared in X-Men (so even if she isn't known by name, the majority of people would likely recognise her), she is incredibly notable as an actress and that is what the majority of users are looking for. As such, I just don't think information like dress size and measurement is really relevent in the infobox, which is the first thing you see. I was inclined to say, "Let's include the information as a quick note in the first paragraph." - but looking at the details, 5ft11 isn't THAT tall, and if I openned an encyclopedia to look up an actress and was presented with her height, dress size, measurements, shoe size and modelling agency... I'd be a bit miffed. I would propose that if you and Aspects aren't prepared to agree on something, openning it up for further comment would be best. SmokingNewton (talk) 06:25, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * (to Horkana)Throughout this discussion you talk about "vital statistics" but the only one you talk about is her height. Also you keep saying I am blocking all of your attempts to add the information.  On January 31, you made this edit,, adding her height based on a reliable source, which is something I have said all along.  As such I am adding a sentence with what I feel are the most important statistics, height, measurements and dress size, based on the fashionmodeldirectory.com.  I feel this is an acceptable compromise although I believe the sentence could be better written.  Per the two third party opinions, I am going to put the Template:Infobox actor back in the article and if Horkana believes there should be more opinions, then you should ask for a WP:Request for comment while leaving the actor infobox in the article. Aspects (talk) 22:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm tired of this, and Wikipedia bureaucracy in general, it's too damned hard to add anything anymore, and it is massively off-putting.
 * I asked for at least one other third party before anything was decided which you are ignoring. Even aside from that I very specifically and reasonably said the third party should be the one to decide if a revert is to be made not Aspects, who should take himself/herself out of the process as he/she is the one with "the stick" causing problems in an article he has barely made any edits to, that weren't just deletes. Only now are you belatedly making an effort to be constructive.
 * The edits mentioned FMD in the comments from the start, you seem not to have noticed it. It is ugly and tedious to have to repeat named references for every line or sentence where they are used rather than once per paragraph or infobox but sadly it seems to be necessary otherwise deletionists make a hatchet-job of everything. Including her modelling measurements as prose does follow best practice of Wikipedia, even if I think these is exactly the kind of thing that are better mentioned tersely in the infobox and it is just an awkward compromise to include it in the main text.
 * I'd hardly say I'm satisfied that it took this much effort to get this little done but I realise if we'd had anything like this early a third party wouldn't have even been necessary. I've had enough and this lame compromise will have to do. I do hope all you have something to add to article, even from the sources already there you could potentially expand the article, and in most articles the History contains lots of good additions that needed only a little work to add references so that people wouldn't delete them without thinking. -- Horkana (talk) 18:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Horkana. Since Famke was/is both an actress and a model, including her (or any other actor/model's) vital statistics is NOT trivial. Quick example: David Prowse probably wouldn't have gotten the role of Darth Vader in the Star Wars films if not for his height. It is almost never trivia to note the vital stats of an actor/actress/model, and the best place to put such is in an infobox. (Parenthetically, I have eased off on my participation in Wikipedia exactly because of the anal way in which such things are handled. Inasmuch as we are trying to create a reliable, verifiable source of information online, some things cannot be referenced online and are only available in dead tree flake form. Seeing "Citation Needed" tags everywhere is annoying and completely detracts from the experience.) -- Jalabi99 (talk) 07:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Pronunciation?
first name

The trivia section says: First name is pronounced "Fam-kuh" (the 'a' pronounced as in the word 'farm') Is that British English, because I'm from New York State, and I don't pronounce "farm" like /Fam/. Could someone supply IPA or some other standard of pronunciation? tharsaile 14:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * famke-janssen.org says FAHM-kah and has a WMV file of her pronouncing it herself in a TV interview. It's about 1:45 in this youtube video if your browser won't play the one at the first link. --Dual Freq 14:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Both of these links are currently dead. --82.171.70.54 (talk) 01:44, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

last name

Anyone know how her surname is pronounced? Is it pronounced with a "J" or is it pronounced in the Dutch way, with a "Y" (as in yacht) like Yanssen? --User:CapFan
 * I believe the correct pronunciation is "Y"anssen; however, Famke has said that she doesn't mind her surname pronounced with a "J." I wish I could find the page that discussed this a while back.  As I said, though, I think the proper pronunciation (which I use as well) is "Y"anssen. -- Luke4545 00:59, 04 December 2007 (UTC).
 * In IPA its . Scoub (talk) 03:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The article currently says: "Janssen's name is pronounced as Fahm-Kuh Yan-Sin." I'm Dutch myself and can tell you that it should be Sun and not Sin. --82.171.70.54 (talk) 01:44, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

""Double name"" She Can't have the name the birthname Beumer Janssen. Her father's name is Janssen, and her mother took that name after their marriage. So, in dutch law, her name after being born is automattically Janssen. If nothing is arranged you autommaticallly got your fathers name. Nowadays the parents can make a choice.

In special cases with nasty divorces there is a possibility to ask the Government to have your last name changed in the surname of your mother(or father). (http://www.justis.nl/Producten/naamswijziging/index.aspx http://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0008951/geldigheidsdatum_03-09-2012 ) This is the case here. The sisters of Famke Janssen also got the name Beumer.

Her name is officially changed, so her only name was Beumer She probably has a document that states that her birthname is nog longer valid and had to hand that with her birth certificate in those cases the certificate is needed.

In the USA it is easyer to change your name, and the prononcation of Beumer could be nasty. So she changed it back to Janssen under American Law. So her birthname was Famke Janssen, her official name was Famke Beumer and her new official name is back Famke Janssen — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.93.155.104 (talk) 14:08, 3 October 2012 (UTC)