Talk:Russell Crowe

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Republic of Doyle[edit]

He also appeared on the CBC Republic of Doyle show alongside Alan Doyle. Tried to add it with citations (this is referenced on the Republic of Doyle wiki entry) but got taken down for some reason. Maybe someone who knows how this works can add it? Reference is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Doyle#Recurring_Cast — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.90.93.21 (talk) 21:41, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

New Zealander and Australian[edit]

Why are some so quick to revert back to Crowe being a New Zealander. The man himself, has publicly stated that he identifies himself as an Australian. It is important to highlight his New Zealand heritage, but equally his Australian identity. Hence, why one of 'New Zealand-born Australian', or 'New Zealander Australian' would make far more sense. The link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdTaa_nLkok&t=12m22s

It is time this issue was properly resolved. It is misleading to say that is a a "New Zealand actor ...". He may still legally, due to technicalities, be a New Zealand citizen but he has principally lived in Australia most of his adult and and also principally identifies himself as being an Australian. Therefore to insist in saying he is a "New Zealand actor ..." is really just silly. It can't be that difficult to find a way of expressing things without misleading readers. Afterwriting (talk) 01:11, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
I have just edited the introduction to more appropriately represent the facts. I request that any editors who might feel tempted to revert or change my edit to first discuss things here. This matter needs to be resolved with common sense. Thank you. Afterwriting (talk) 01:23, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
The information that you have added isn't incorrect, it was just in the wrong section. Crowe identifying himself as a particular nationality should be noted in the Early or Personal Life section. I just don't see how it belongs as the first or second sentence of the article. (talk)4TheWynne(cont) 01:26, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree with you in principle but we need to find a form of words for the intro which stops the edit warring. Yours was a good attempt but it still has has the problem of saying he is an "Australian" when, legally, he isn't. Afterwriting (talk) 01:29, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
It is still more correct than to simply say that Crowe is a "New Zealand actor". It is up to you to stop reverting and find an alternative. I will restore my work, word the sentence differently and put it in one of the aforementioned sections, instead of putting a sentence in the lead which doesn't belong there. This will put an end to an edit war which you are starting. (talk)4TheWynne(cont) 01:37, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
"New Zealand-born Australian actor ..." is misleading as it gives the impression that he is no longer a New Zealand citizen but an Australian when this is not legally true. Please keep discussing and respect my request. I have not started an "edit war" ~ just the opposite. I am seeking consensus on the wording. It is up to you to stop edit warring. Afterwriting (talk)
  • Nationality is a legal concept in Australia. We should not be stating that Crowe is an Australian national when this is factually inaccurate under Australian law. What Crowe identifies as is secondary to the factual considerations of what he is. By all means clarify his status but please do not misrepresent it. Betty Logan (talk) 01:47, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
That is exactly what I am trying to do. Crowe is not legally a "New Zealand-born Australian actor ..." But it is also misleading to simply say that he is a "New Zealand actor ..." We need need to clarify the facts without misleading wording. The wording I have proposed, I believe, acceptably does this. It would be good if it wasn't needed in the introduction but something is needed there to stop the ongoing edit warring on this matter. If you or any other editors can suggest an improvement to my wording then please do so. Afterwriting (talk) 01:54, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
I've been meaning to keep away from this debacle, keeping a close eye on it in the meantime. I have just felt that there are better ways to represent Crowe than as a "New Zealand actor" (and that it should be left in another section), and to say that he is "a New Zealander first and foremost" sounds opinionative. I'm no expert, though. You guys can keep discussing, and I'll go with whatever works. (talk)4TheWynne(cont) 01:56, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
It is not misleading to say he is a "New Zealand actor who lives in Australia" or something to that effect since that is in reality what he is. He is hardly an exception around the world: there are many nationals who live in other countries (and I am one of them!). If Crowe considered himself a New Zealander this wouldn't be an issue, so it is his perspective that is causing the problems; however, his perspective does not alter the facts. Just present the facts as they stand i.e. his legal nationality, where he lives etc, and Crowe's perspective can be covered in the personal section. Betty Logan (talk) 02:08, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
It certainly is misleading because neither he or almost anyone else considers him to be a "New Zealand actor ..." He and just about the whole world identifies him as an Australian. That is also a fact. As I keep saying, we need to find a suitable form of words that ~ as far as reasonably possible ~ represents ALL the facts on this matter and stops the edit warring. If the best way to do this is to clarify things in the introduction then let's just do so. Although having the clarification further down in the article would be better it just won't work in stopping the edit war. Sometimes the Manual of Style needs to be ignored when needed as in this instance. Afterwriting (talk) 02:13, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
The law defines him as a New Zealander. Just because the world associates him with Australia does not mean we should be party to misinformation. They associate Mel Gibson with Australia too but that does not alter the fact he is American. Betty Logan (talk) 02:19, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Do you want to stop the edit warring or are you only interested in legal technicalities? See comment below. Afterwriting (talk) 02:28, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I propose changing the wording to "New Zealand-born actor ...". Whilst not ideal it is still factual and when clarified by the other facts is more appropriate. Many people can be born in a country and still legally a citizen without that being the country they are identified with by either themselves or others. Afterwriting (talk) 02:26, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I oppose it. It obfuscates the fact he is a New Zealand national. The lede currently addresses all angles (nis nationality/where he lives/what he culturally identifies as) so I see no reason for altering it any further. And if you want to stop the edit-warring you could simply stop pushing your agenda, because the article was stable until you came along. Betty Logan (talk) 02:46, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Stable"? This matter hasn't been stable for years! So you can stop with the gratuitously offensive comments and making false accusations about me "pushing" some kind of personal "agenda". The only agenda I have is to be constructive editor and try and resolve this ongoing issue. Since you can't comment intelligently without being offensive I will be raising a Request for Comment about this as we are getting nowhere. Afterwriting (talk) 04:34, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Russell Crowe may certainly think of himself as an Australian, but the Immigration Department says otherwise.... http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/celebrity/russell-who--immigration-department-asks-20150325-1m7q55.html Gilberticus Fyshius (talk) 12:03, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Removal of content from "Altercations and controversies"[edit]

An editor has removed a huge amount of information labeling the cuts as "not notable" and "pov". While the section is not without its problems I don't agree that making huge sweeping cuts to the section is a constructive approach to fixing it. There are a couple of issues I have:

  • Removing information on the grounds it is "not notable". This is a false pretext for removing content since notability only pertains to whether an article should exist. WP:NOTEWORTHY specifically states that notability criteria does not apply to article content.
  • Secondly, removing content on the grounds it is not neutral is not a constructive way to fixing the problems. If something is not neutral then it can usually be fixed with a re-write, or by adding more content to balance the WP:NPOV concerns.

I suggest the following preliminary steps to address the problems with the section:

  1. Remove content that is a direct BLP concern only i.e. if the content is potentially libelous.
  2. If something is not sourced then tag it or remove it at your own discretion.
  3. If a claim is attributed to a source that you believe does not meet the criteria for WP:RS then either find an alternative source or tag it.
  4. If something is not neutral worded, then try and re-write it so it is or otherwise tag it.

Bearing these concerns in mind I am going to restore the content since it has been incorrectly removed under one criterion that does not apply, and no effort has been made to address the second problem constructively. Removing huge amounts of sourced information under sweeping statements looks like a whitewash at best and is disruptive at worst. Betty Logan (talk) 00:15, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Controversy regarding The Water Diviner: In a telegram to the Secretary of State regarding Ottoman Greek deportations conducted in 1915, Henry Morgenthau (1856-1946), United States ambassador to Turkey, states: "Evidently Turkish nationalistic policy is aimed at all Christians and not confined to Armenians."2 In an article first published in The Red Cross Magazine (March, 1918), Henry Morgenthau (1856-1946), United States ambassador to Turkey, asked: "Will the outrageous terrorising, the cruel torturing, the driving of women into the harems, the debauchery of innocent girls, the sale of many of them at eighty cents each, the murdering of hundreds of thousands and the deportation to, and starvation in, the deserts of other hundreds of thousands, the destruction of hundreds of villages and cities, will the wilful execution of this whole devilish scheme to annihilate the Armenian, Greek and Syrian Christians of Turkey -- will all this go unpunished?"3 In his memoirs Ambassador Morgenthau's Story (1918) Henry Morgenthau wrote: "Acting under Germany's prompting, Turkey now began to apply this principle of deportation to her Greek subjects in Asia Minor... This procedure against the Greeks not improperly aroused my indignation. I did not have the slightest suspicion at that time that the Germans had instigated these deportations, but I looked upon them merely as an outburst of Turkish ferocity and chauvinism. By this time I knew Talaat well; I saw him nearly every day, and he used to discuss practically every phase of international relations with me. I objected vigorously to his treatment of the Greeks; I told him that it would make the worst possible impression abroad and that it affected American interests... "Turkey for the Turks" was now Talaat's controlling idea."4 "Their [the Young Turks] passion for Turkifying the nation seemed to demand logically the extermination of all Christians---Greeks, Syrians, and Armenians."5 "The Armenians are not the only subject people in Turkey which have suffered from this policy of making Turkey exclusively the country of the Turks. The story which I have told about the Armenians I could also tell with certain modifications about the Greeks and the Syrians. Indeed the Greeks were the first victims of this nationalizing idea."6 “The Turks adopted almost identically the same procedure against the Greeks as that which they had adopted against the Armenians.”7101.163.77.193 (talk) 04:05, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

→ This section keeps getting removed. Suggest maybe an edit lock as it is probably a concerted effort at controlling image as he's currently releasing his editorial debut. Section restored again, as well as added recent controversy re "actresses acting their age". This is his own words, so would be hard to remove under a POV clause. Erik Veland (talk) 12:26, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I suggest that Crowes controversial and aggressive public participation in circumcision debate is a notable part of his image especially given the long duration of his participation and its obvious newsworthiness in publications with large distribution e.g. Crowe uses his twitter account to enter controversial public debates on a range of issues, such as his opposition to circumcision.[1][2] Diggers2004 (talk) 03:35, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Most celebrities have Twitter accounts, and most celebrities have opinions on a wide range of topics, but there is a substantial difference between someone just expressing a viewpoint and somebody legitimately taking part in a debate i.e. Liz Taylor and AIDS, Angelina Jolie and sexual violence in war zones etc. If he has engaged in activism against circumcision then I agree his views on the subject would be relevant then, but they should be framed within the context of that debate. You have to bear in mind that he is ultimately only notable for his work related to film, and trivial mentions of his opinions are pursuant to that. Betty Logan (talk) 16:30, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
I see the distinction. Thanks Diggers2004 (talk) 01:38, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Russell Crowe tweets in support of mother trying to stop circumcision of son". http://www.news.com.au. Herald-Sun (News Corp). Retrieved 13 November 2014. External link in |website= (help)
  2. ^ "Russell Crowe sorry for anti-circumcision tweets?". International Business Times . 13 June 2011. Retrieved 14 June 2011. line feed character in |newspaper= at position 31 (help)

RfC : Trying to resolve the ongoing New Zealand / Australian issues.[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

There has been an ongoing issue with this article for some years over whether (or in what ways) Russell Crowe ought to be described as being either a New Zealander or an Australian or as both. This results in an edit war on a reasonably regular basis. Although I attempted in a section above to try and resolve this tiresome issue by discussion and consensus this didn't get anywhere and was responded to with some false accusations that I had a personal agenda or was actually encouraging a further edit war. Nothing could be further from the truth. So I would greatly appreciate it if some neutral and constructive editors could have a look at the comments in the section above and suggest a way forward. Thanks. Afterwriting (talk) 04:51, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments[edit]

  • Support New Zealand nationality with qualification. While Russell Crowe may well be associated with Australia and regard himself as culturally Australian it would be factually inaccurate to describe him as Australian. He is not regarded as "Australian" under Australian law, having his citizenship application denied. New Zealand nationality is also enshrined in law, and a citizen cannot relinquish NZ nationality unless he obtains citizenhip of another country first. People come here for hard facts, not wishy-washy editorialising from us. The lede currently describes him as a New Zealand national domiciled in Australia and that reflects the reality of his situation. I have no objection to the article expanding on his self-identification, provided it is not at the expense of factual accuracy. This is what the article does at the time of writing so I do not think alterations are necessary. Betty Logan (talk) 05:17, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
  • This is not just an issue about his legal nationality. No one is arguing with that fact I hope. But while he is still legally a New Zealand citizen does that also make him a "New Zealand actor, film producer and musician"? Has he ever been any of these things in New Zealand in any notable way? As he hasn't so the wording is, at least, misleading even if arguably factual. A more appropriate ~ and more factual ~ wording is to say something such as that he is a "New Zealand-born but Australia-based actor, film maker and musician". The nationality issues can be mentioned further into the article. Afterwriting (talk) 05:35, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
To describe him as "New Zealand born" is misleading since it implies he is not a New Zealand national. He is a New Zealand national that is domiciled in Australia. That is what he is so that is what the article should state. Wikipedia should not be party to misinformation. Betty Logan (talk) 05:52, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Saying, factually, that he is New Zealand-born but Australia-based implies nothing about his nationality one way or the other. That is what he is in reality. The current wording only confuses this fact. His legal nationality is a distinct issue. And, talking about being a party to misinformation, Crowe's identity is clearly much more than just that of a "New Zealand national that is domiciled in Australia". You are really missing the point of this. Afterwriting (talk) 06:11, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Anyway, both of us have had our say and made our points so how about we now take a break and see if anyone else wants to comment? Afterwriting (talk) 06:20, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Clearly no-one is interested in joining the discussion. I am not surprised, since these debates are often tedious and frequent. The second sentence tells us the three main facts, so I propose simply dropping the country altogether from the first sentence so it reads as follows: Russell Ira Crowe (born 7 April 1964) is an actor, film producer and musician. Although still a New Zealand citizen, he has lived most of his life in Australia and identifies himself as an Australian. If we have that second sentence we don't need to mention his nationality in the opening sentence. Betty Logan (talk) 07:03, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the suggestion above: "Russell Ira Crowe (born 7 April 1964) is a New Zealand an actor, film producer and musician. Although still a New Zealand citizen, he has lived most of his life in Australia and identifies himself as an Australian." --Mkativerata (talk) 07:36, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I can support this wording. It is the kind of common sense wording I was seeking all along. I agree with Mkativerata's suggestion to not include "still" but this isn't that important either way. Afterwriting (talk) 05:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Support. Viriditas (talk) 04:19, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
It seems we are all on the same page on this. Anyone object to me installing Mkativerata's rewording, or do we have to wait for the RFC to formally conclude? Betty Logan (talk) 05:04, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
My preference would be for you to make the change, but to keep the RfC open until it closes. That way, if someone objects to the changes in progress, they can be pointed here and participate in the discussion. If there's still a consensus, you can use the RfC to support the changes. Viriditas (talk) 06:00, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
I have initiated the changes so we can see how that goes. Thanks for your's and Mkativerata's input. Betty Logan (talk) 17:48, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
  • LegoBot summoned me. It looks like consensus has already been reached, but since the RFC has remained open, I will say that the consensus-derived opening described above looks good to me, too. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:48, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Russell Crowe nationality in infobox[edit]

I thought we had turned a corner on this issue, but unfortunately the dispute has now progressed to the infobox. An editor has been adding Australian "nationality" to the infobox which I have now twice reverted. It would be nice if we could resolve this quickly in a collegiate manner without much aggro. While Crowe may regard himself as Australian he is not an Australian national. This was at the heart of the recent debate. In Australia nationality is legally defined per Australian nationality law, where contrary to the editor's claim, nationality is synonymous with citizenship.

One solution would be to use the citizenship field instead and drop the nationality field, if this is acceptable to other editors. We should refrain from adding Australian "nationality" to the infobox because it is factually inaccurate in regards to how the Australians themselves define the concepts and ambiguous for everyone not familiar with the legal definition. Either way, can we please discuss the issue here first and focus on finding a solution. Betty Logan (talk) 17:24, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

I’m very clearly late to the conversation and each side has valid points. I’m however not content with not including something where a nationality is commonly added. So how about a compromise choice? How about “Russell Ira Crowe is a Oceanian actor”? That way it includes both countries without leverage over the other as well. Rusted AutoParts 08:10, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Personally I agree with you, but I don't really approve of the solution. I think calling him "Oceanian" is just as bad, because which other reliable source does that? The compromise or "consensus" was the result of agenda pushing by Australian nationalists. The facts are that Crowe is a New Zealander actor based in Australia, so I so don't see why we don't just say that. That would give his nationality, occupation and place of residence. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia so we shouldn't be be obfuscating facts IMO. I am certainly open to reviewing the current wording though because I have never really been satisfied by what ended up there. Betty Logan (talk) 22:17, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
I agree because to me it's a tad silly to exclude a nationality because of the fact some disagree over it. We need one there. I would like it if this was brought to a wider audience so more opinion can be put in. Rusted AutoParts 22:25, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Russell Crowe "befriending" journalists[edit]

An IP has repeatedly removed the following statement several times:

...except for in Australia where Crowe had made a point of befriending journalists in an effort to control his image.
Source: The Sydney Morning Herald

Maybe the IP could expand on what the problem is? That Crowe didn't befriend journalists? That he didn't attempt to manipulate the media? Is there a problem with the credibility of the source? The story—if we take it as read—appears to vindicate the claim so I don't really understand what the issue is. Betty Logan (talk) 21:11, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

There are hundreds of journalists in Australia and him throwing a telephone at somebody was all over the news. It's impossible that befriending a few people means his image wasn't negatively effected in Australia. 194.82.100.172 (talk) 21:23, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
What if we re-worded it slightly as follows: "...although in Australia Crowe has made a point of befriending journalists in an effort to control his image." Would that work for you? I think the underlying story of his attempts to manipulate the media are interesting and well worth retaining. Betty Logan (talk) 21:35, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
I've only managed to read half of that very long article but so far it's just one guy claiming all this. Is there independent confirmation? I'd also go with "influence" rather than control. 194.82.100.172 (talk) 21:49, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
It seems to be one journalist's personal obersvations (and perhaps that should be more explicit), but do we have a reason to doubt its authenticity? It is published in a respectable publication. Has Crowe challenged the account at all? Betty Logan (talk) 15:00, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Russell Crowe. 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.

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 13:34, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Apparent mistake in early life section[edit]

Crowe says in this video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vHTlSDvDO8 - that he planned to study history at university but couldn't because his father lost his job and he needed to get one. The bio however says he left school at 16 to pursue acting (unsourced). 2.103.13.171 (talk) 00:02, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Russell Crowe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 01:34, 2 December 2017 (UTC)