Talk:Helena Bonham Carter

Incorrect relationship information

In the section that mentions her relationship with director Tim Burton, there is an incorrect statement regarding the circumstances of how they got together. I have tried to correct this but my changes are being reverted back. This sentence "In October 2001, she began her current relationship with director Tim Burton (while he was engaged to and living with actress Lisa Marie, who was also Burton's collaborator and co-producer), whom she met while filming Planet of the Apes." is not only wrong, but also implies that Helena Bonham Carter split up Tim Burton and his previous partner, Lisa Marie, which is not the case. Her rep said that their relationship began after Burton and Lisa Marie's split and although they MET while filming Planet of the Apes, that is not when their relationship began. Lisa Marie ended the relationship after the Premiere, in around July/August time, and Tim and Helena got together in October, two months later.

The issue is sourcing. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Does that mean that I need to find a source saying that she didn't split up Tim and Lisa Marie? There's no reference to where the original came from, in fact, it's entirely untrue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.37.84 (talk) 18:25, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

You need to do a couple things. The first is stop removing content while this is being discussed. The second is to provide sources for the statements you've made. "Her rep said that their relationship began after Burton and Lisa Marie's split" - source for that. "Lisa Marie ended the relationship after the Premiere, in around July/August time, and Tim and Helena got together in October, two months later" - sources for that. You're offering this as proof that one was not connected with the other. Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:42, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Whatever the truth of this, Wikipedia is not a gossip column. I don't think we should be getting into all the details of who shagged who on which date. PatGallacher (talk) 19:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Sources The New York premiere was 23rd July 2001, and Tim and Lisa were still together. Tim and Lisa split after the Planet of the Apes premiere, but it doesn't say which. The last premiere was 30th August 2001, in Paris. http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/story?id=100985&page=1 (Tim and Lisa's split)

Spokeswoman says that Tim and Helena had only been together a matter of weeks, and the article is dated October, roughly two months after Tim and Lisa's split. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/1621050.stm

Another article saying that they got together after Tim split with Lisa http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/entertainment/showbiz-news/celebrity-interviews/2009/07/06/harry-potter-star-helena-bonham-carter-insists-she-and-gothic-director-tim-burton-are-just-another-couple-86908-21498113/

There are photos that prove that Tim was still with Lisa after filming of Planet of the Apes finished, but I'm not sure if I can post those here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.37.84 (talk) 18:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

At best, this is original research. I believe that there is also an important principle in BLPs: do no harm. PatGallacher (talk) 01:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

New

What does this mean (I'm not very good with Wikipedia-language), I still can't correct this article? And the other people who have been trying to correct it as well can't? --Ladylovettdisdain (talk) 20:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

If you are referring to changes such as this one and this one, they are being reverted because there is no reliable source being added to support the change. Changes of fact such as that requires references. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

All I'm really trying to do is remove "(while he was engaged to and living with actress Lisa Marie, who was also Burton's collaborator and co-producer)" from the sentence (although in a previous edit I tried to improve how the sentence sounded), which doesn't actually have a reference, or at least I can't see one, and so I would have thought that it wouldn't be allowed. Am I able to use any of the links I provided above as references? --Ladylovettdisdain (talk) 09:03, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

That's not in the article anymore. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:57, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

The King's Speech

Why was this information removed from the filmography table? The role has been confirmed on several sites now. Angelic-alyssa (talk) 00:42, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

It's pretty basic. It can be written across the sky in diamonds, but we don't add films to the filmography until they have entered some stage of active production - as in filming, which is not verified in this article. That's exactly what the edit summary said: "I'd have to see a source that this is filming, thus listable". That's not ambiguous at all and it is far from a new condition. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:37, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

The website below has confirmed that they have already started filming, which is why I put 'filming' in the table.

http://www.screendaily.com/news/production/new-cast-announced-as-the-kings-speech-starts-shooting/5008126.article Angelic-alyssa (talk) 09:20, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Except that isn't how sourcing works. You can't add something and just say "Oh, I found it here." Surely you've been on Wikipedia long enough to figure that out. We generally wait until the status is updated on IMDB. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:02, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

IMDB is not always reliable, surely everyone knows that? I think, rather than waiting for IMDB to get around to adding the filming status, it should just be added now. I think that the above source is good enough, its been reported by many sites and newspapers that filming was due to start and has now begun. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.37.84 (talk) 18:39, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Like it or not, that is how it is done - once IMDB lists the status change, then we list it. There are things that are not reliable on IMDB, such as the bios, trivia, plot summaries, etc., because those parts are user generated. Then there are things that are vetted, such as the cast lists, production status, release dates and revenue. It isn't so simple as saying "IMDB is not always reliable, surely everyone knows that?" And for the record, you did not add a cite for the source, you said "several sites" confirmed it and stuck a link to the talk page. Like I said, surely you've been on Wikipedia long enough to figure out how adding a source works. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:39, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Talking to the wrong person there, surely you've been on Wikipedia long enough to know that members usually sign off? There is more than one person disputing here... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.37.84 (talk) 18:17, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Clothing

i am new to this whole thing but i would like you to put something in about her outfits and how they are very unusaul and that tim burton supports her clothing choices plus helena believes it her duty to dress like she does since she has so often had strange outfits--24.167.167.252 (talk) 22:36, 10 April 2010 (UTC)smashin posion helena meryl hatter

Other stage performances

I can not be sure, but i seem to remember her in a 1984ish performance of Midsummer Night's Dream in Stratford on Avon, Canada... Could be the imagination of a then 12 yr old child... But this memory of the program still sticks with me... Can anybody confirm or deny this?75.39.16.79 (talk) 08:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe that Helena has ever performed a Midsummer Night's Dream. If you had an approximate date I could double check for you, but I don't think it was her :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.222.237.62 (talk) 15:37, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit: Just seen that you put 1984. Helena didn't make her professioal stage debut until 1988, so if it was a professional production then it wasn't her. If it was an amateur production, I still highly doubt it was Helena due to the location.--188.222.237.62 (talk) 15:41, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Marmite

HBC likes this. Or at least says she does on her Facebook page and presumably there is no reason to think she is lying. SmokeyTheCat 20:31, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Do you propose to say something about this in the article? I wish you'd reconsider, because it's hardly encyclopedic. Neither is the fact that she's been seen in the company of the Prime Minister, btw. We all eat stuff and we all have friends. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 07:17, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to impose, but I just wanted to point out that Helena Bonham Carter doesn't have an official Facebook page and she isn't on Facebook herself. Angelic-alyssa (talk) 18:58, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Career details

Why is there hardly any information about her career from Room With A View to Harry Potter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.90.153.203 (talk) 00:28, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Ancestry

I fail to see how having a five-generation pedigree for an actress is anything but gratuitous genealogy. Do we learn anything more about her as an actress or fashion trend-setter by knowing that her father's father's mother's father was named George Warde Norman? Certainly not. Yes, she was great-granddaughter of the Prime Minister, and the article already said that, but to include another 30 non-notable people? And absolutely none of it sourced. Is there some reliable third-party source that decided to publish her entire pedigree? I doubt it, which means it is either WP:SYN or from a non-reliable source and in a WP:BLP anything not referenced is subject to deletion. We don't (or at least shouldn't) go dropping pedigrees in every biography just because we found the information on some web page and there might be someone on the planet who is curious. Agricolae (talk) 15:38, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree with you Agri. Let's prune it or cut completely. --BweeB (talk) 12:46, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with you two entirely. I find HBC's family history extremely intruiging and this article is obviously the only place on wikipedia for it. It would be a travesty to remove it, simply because you think it breaks the flow. It adds so much to the article. The only thing I can suggest is to seperate out 'Family background' and 'Early life', if that would please you. Colt .55 (talk) 11:41, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

The section on early life and family background is hard to wade through, and I looked in here to see if anyone else had noticed too. All the distant relatives could be pasted into a section with a different title a lot further down the article: they have little or nothing to do with Helena Bonham Carter's immediate family background as a child, and interrupt the flow of the article. g88keeper (talk) 17:21, 3 July 2011 (UTC)g88keeper

As stated above I partly agree with you. While I think it might be a compromise to divide it to two sections 'Family background' and 'Early life', I think deleting all or any of the section would be counter-productive to the cause of wikipedia. The section on her family history is incredibly interesting. Colt .55 (talk) 11:41, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Image placement

The image placed in the Filmography section has the unpleasant side effect of squeezing the first table horizontally. My browser is 1082 pixels wide, and the table seems quite crowded (character names and many titles are placed on two lines). Perhaps we should consider replacing one of the other images instead? The 2005 Toronto photo isn't too flattering. Elizium23 (talk) 13:45, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Urinary Incontinence

I have tried to update her personal life section with this information, which can be found in multiple sources, myself, but my changes were reverted. I have started a discussion thread on the subject so that a senior editor might succeed where I have failed. These were her exact words:

I was ill-equipped as I’d just had a baby. I wasn’t very fit. You have pelvic floor problems after having a baby and bladder control is minimal. Every time I screamed I wore nappies.

Sources (among others): [1], [2], [3]

Please assume good faith.KlappCK (talk) 15:42, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I guess I should have pointed out that this was in reference to her having a child before filming the 6th Harry Potter film. KlappCK (talk) 14:00, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

So no one has anything to add about this? I will try to make the commit with the citations and direct to this thread.KlappCK (talk) 17:10, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

The problem here is that it has not been discussed in independent reliable sources. As such, it is trivial and should be removed, especially as this is a weight issue. We can find reliable sources saying Bono wore in every U2 tour since the dawn of time and clutter up the article on him with that info, citing various semi-reliable sources that note every twitch of Edge's left pinkie. We can find numerous sources discussing what Bill Clinton had for dinner on a particular night and pack his article with lots of that as well, citing numerous sites that discuss food in jaw-dropping depth. Maybe Starlet X had acne as a child, mentioned it in an interview and numerous cites about acne posted quotes ("See, Unhappy Adolescent Girl, it even happened to this sex kitten when she was your age."). These would all be undue weight issues. If, however, independent reliable sources make it a point of discussion (think: Jimmy Carter's brother's drinking, which was discussed in every major new source of the era), then it is relevant. Without this policy, we end up with editors adding pure trivia to most major articles and many minor ones. Dislike a particular politician? Certainly there are sources mentioning a time they farted near a microphone. Obsessed with feet? Surely there are sources talking about who has taken their shoes off on nationwide talk shows. Really into guitars? Perhaps every article on every guitar player should list every guitar they've ever used, along with the speakers, picks and strings. Before long, you can't find out when Ringo Starr joined the Beatles because there's too much trivia about the color of the rugs he put under his bass drum. "This kind of junk has no place whatsoever in an article." and it only belongs in an article "If and only if the information has become the topic of discussion in articles about the subject in notable venues." - SummerPhD (talk) 23:52, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Maybe I should go ask Helena herself next time I see her. (actually I've only seen her once near her home.) if you want to add stuff to the article and it's challenged you should not edit war and accuse others of bad faith when clearly no breaches of AGF were present.--Τασουλα (Almira) (talk) 00:58, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Many women have bladder control issues after birth. Information such as this is off-putting and does not belong in a Wikipedia article about an actress. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.239.206.92 (talk) 10:55, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

It's a direct quote from Helena herself. She was obviously comfortable with talking about it in Public. --Τασουλα (Almira) (talk) 12:52, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm decreasing the prevalence of the personal information in question. Hopefully that will appease those concerned with weight of the subject within the article. The important thing here is that she made unsolicited remarks about her experiences with a private issue affecting many postpartum women, which is it has receieved attention from established incontinence websites. KlappCK (talk) 13:21, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I think it is utterly unnotable, specially in a BLP, but YMMV. - DVdm (talk) 13:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello DVdm, this edit summary [4] was a misuse of HG tools, as the quote is sourced and was not negative as it came from Helena herself, please just use the regular rollback with an edit summary. I will now abstain from this discussion entirely based on the grounds it's trivial and just hindering any real development into making the article better. Ta-ta. --Τασουλα (Almira) (talk) 13:53, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree and will strike comment on user talk page. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 14:01, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

As SummerPhD has demonstrated, that she experienced postpartum incontinence is unnotable; we all seem to agree about that. What is notable is that she was willing to share unsolicited personal medical information with media sources. Given the nature of the subject matter as largely taboo in mainstream culture (hence the near impossiblity of CNN ever doing a feature article on the subject), and the prominence within the incontinence community (not an insignificant minority, by the way) of the sources, I would say that theysource are as good as we are going to get. Certainly we can find another example of an unnotable medical issue becoming relavent because of the person who was willing to talk about it, can't we? KlappCK (talk) 14:19, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

We don't need to find "another example of an unnotable medical issue becoming relavent because of the person who was willing to talk about it". We need to limit articles, especially biographies of living persons to relevant information. That the sources you have found are "as good as we are going to get" is not a reason to include it, it is a reason to question whether it should be included. Yes, other articles may have problems, we are here to discuss this one. The content is sourced to two sources that are not discussing Carter, they are discussing urinary incontinence. As repeatedly discussed, we are looking for significant coverage in independent reliable sources discussing the subject of this article and urinary incontinence. You've been told repeatedlyex1, ex2, ex3, ex4, ex5, ex6, ex7, ex8, ex9, ex10, ex11 that this information is, in essence, trivial -- similar to adding information about the flu or acne to every BLP where the person has even mentioned it. You are running out of forums and I am running out of options. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:05, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

SummerPhD has repeatedly pointed me to WP:WAX, yet she seems to always miss the diagram of Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement and some other important content from the top of the page. As she has done me the favor of demonstrating (above), when discussing the subject matter, she frequently contributes ad hominem arguments, responses to tone, bare contradiction (appealing to policy and notability) and, at best, counterargument (and I thank her for at least doing that). Furthermore, I believe she misinterpreted my point: a universal definition of what is relevant and well-sourced, that is, one that is independent of context, does not exist in practice. I am largely unimpressed by appeals to policy and am unconvinced by the anecdotal counterarguments against inclusion of this information in a BLP. Of all examples SummerPhD has listed of similar discussions over similar subject matter on other BLPs, this has by far the strongest case for inclusion in a BLP. For that reason, I have been willing to ignore some details of the "the (inconsistent) rules" of relevance in order to improve the article. The sourcing, in context, and the subject matter is, in context, relevant in my opinion. At this point, I question the neutrality of those intent on seeing all such material removed (as she has clearly demonstrated). Alas, I have been beaten down past the point of giving a fuck about this article anymore. Fortunately for everyone else, I feel that I have gotten to point where I am starting to take this content dispute personally, and have, therefore, decided to put down the stick. Nevertheless, relevance in a BLP is clearly a function of the scope and depth of the article, so I am sure this will inevitably come up again.KlappCK (talk) 17:27, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ For whoever wants to pick up where I have left off, here are some more links to the subject as covered by various sources (particularly ones that have their own wikipedia page):

• Digital Spy - [5]
• Daily Californian - [6]KlappCK (talk) 18:24, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

As a general rule, sites that use "omg!" in headlines do not have "a reputation for fact checking and accuracy". - SummerPhD (talk) 18:37, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

What can be said about any of these links that can't be said about Fox News? Oh, by the way [7]. A machine can look past the "omg", why can't you? Oh, wait, it must be the exclamation point in place of the comma:[8] ;) KlappCK (talk) 20:12, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Incontinence in women: 1 in 200.[9] Acne in women: 1 in 202.[10] Utterly trivial. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:31, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad you're enjoying Wolfram|Alpha. What is ironic here is that postpartum incontinence isn't even listed as one of the probable diagnoses. The closest we get is "female stress incontinence" at 12% among females. Alas, it's worthless anyway because CNN hasn't talked about Wolfram|Alpha's results on the subject and the design of the software that mines the data is all original research. Note also that no one is debating the triviality of the condition (rather the triviality of being open about it), not that it is proportionally represented on Wikipedia (of the 1000's of BLPs only one links to the term "urinary incontinence". I wish I could overlay an arrow pointing to the numerous times I've said as much (maybe flashing lights would help?). It's kind of crazy to think that there is not a single famous incontinent person. Since you mentioned acne, several BLPs have links to acne (and all the ones I investigated refer the acne of the person in question); it seems that plenty of famous people have acne. I wonder if the relative number of famous people with incontinence to those with acne is statistically significant, and if this is itself trivial?KlappCK (talk) 20:57, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Profile Picture

Can someone please find a more flattering picture to put at the top of the BLP?KlappCK (talk) 20:07, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Specifically, what's wrong with it? - it illustrates the persons face clearly. It's better than allot of BLP photos around here, I remember the one of Robert Pattinson with half his head shaved off. --Τασουλα (Almira) (talk) 20:16, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

All of the available pictures of her are located here. Reanimated X (talk) 20:24, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I like the one on the 3rd row furthest left, where she wares a hat. --BweeB (talk) 19:00, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Hardly any good photos, lets be honest. Sticking with the current one seems like a good idea. --Τασουλα (Almira) (talk) 20:40, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Well this one isn't that bad, to be honest. Reanimated X (talk) 20:44, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

No Cleavage showing? I mean, ahem, yes it is rather good, in a way, the subject is clearly shown but...what's with the distortion? --Τασουλα (Almira) (talk) 20:49, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, there's the original. Can you edit it? Reanimated X (talk) 20:54, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't know where to begin on that /: but as I've seen the original now, I can see what I thought was heavy distortion around her head, is in fact a big black bow. So not as bad as I first thought. It's already cropped. --Τασουλα (Almira) (talk) 21:59, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Ha! I actually prefer the Helena Bonham Carter at 26th Santa Barbara International Film Festival in 2011. captioned one.KlappCK (talk) 13:31, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

This one? Reanimated X (talk) 18:22, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, definitely that one.KlappCK (talk) 18:40, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to cut it and replace the current one with it. Reanimated X (talk) 18:42, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Τασουλα (Almira): I read your user page. Now your post No Cleavage showing? I mean, ahem, yes it is rather good... is infinitely more hilarious; I have a thing for Helena as well. Reanimated X: So switch the two pictures?KlappCK (talk) 19:07, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Cut the picture so only her bust would be shown(and I'm referring to the head and shoulders), upload it and then replace the current one. Reanimated X (talk) 19:56, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Two things: 1) I don't know how to do that (perhaps you can direct me to a tutorial, as I'd be happy to learn). 2) I would prefer the image less if was only a head and shoulders crop. Let me check the options again and get back to you on a different suggestion.KlappCK (talk) 13:15, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Actually, I rather like that one as-is. Most of the others seem to spin off in the direction of either her "period" look (circa Room With a View/Wings of a Dove/etc.) or her more "Bohemian" look. This one seems to split the middle, a bit red carpet-y perhaps. But whatever. As to the whole cleavage or not bit, she's not my type. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:33, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I think this one looks great, and it also doesn't have the "'period' look" that SummerPhD mentioned. Still waiting for a link to some tutorial on how to crop and upload the picture. Sorry, I'm a novice.KlappCK (talk) 14:21, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The one you just suggested doesn't need to be cropped. And apparently it also has Almira's so coveted cleavage. Reanimated X (talk) 17:32, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I dare say it has even more cleavage. So what do I do, just cut out the original picture and replace with the new?KlappCK (talk) 19:13, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

If there are no objections to the switch, just replace it -- after adjusting the contrast to highlight the cleavage, of course. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:12, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Changed the image. Reanimated X (talk) 22:27, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I <3 you all.KlappCK (talk) 13:57, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Pristinegoal's edits

I removed the line about her maternal grandfather converting to Catholicism. He was born and raised Catholic (his Spanish mother's faith). I kept the line about her grandmother converting to Catholicism after WWII, except I moved it into the paragraph about her grandmother. I removed the "Catholic" categories because I don't think there is any evidence Bonham Carter herself was raised Catholic or practiced/practices Catholicism, though it is possible. Almost certainly, her father was Protestant. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 23:50, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Typecast

I'm removing the irrelevant muckracking paragraph about her alleged typecasting. If this gains any kind of notability then we can consider re-adding it. But I don't see how an obscene comment by an unrelated actress lends any relevancy to her life or career. Elizium23 (talk) 17:54, 3 February 2012 (UTC)