Talk:Jamie Lee Curtis

The Image

I can't get it to work the Jamieleecurtisstar and it is the PERFECT image for her.

Baroness

As the wife of a baron, she is correctly referred to as 'Lady Haden-Guest', 'The Lady Haden-Guest', or 'The Rt Hon The Lady Haden-Guest'. (no first name is used). The place name 'of Saling, co. Essex' is not part of the title, it's just meant to clarify the place associated with the title. Not that I suspect she'd care, but Baroness, Lady Haden-Guest is redundant. Someone else

Children's book author

It seems that J.L.C. is also known as an author of children's books. Try http://www.google.com/search?q=jamie+lee+curtis+children's . As I'm not much of an article writer, I won't even attempt to amend the article itself, but it should be done!! -- User:jnothman

Lady Haden-Guest

Please don't patronise me. Policy is to use "Baron" and "Baroness" for the lowest rank of non-Scottish Peers, because that's the legal term for the rank and the form that is found in legal names. You just need to look at any article on a male Life Peer — they are listed as "John Smith, Baron Such-and-Such", even though they're never called that in "conventional usage". Proteus (Talk)

Cool down, man, you sound like you want to fight him.

Salary History

Is this section really needed, or even appropriate? How much somebody is payed doesn't sound like encyclopaedia material to me, and quite frankly is none of our business how much she was payed.

I've removed the section for these reasons Lochok 23:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Name?

As written, the article lede implies that Jamie Lee Haden-Guest is her legal name, but that Jamie Lee Curtis is what she is "universally known as". Is Haden-Guest actually her legal last name? I don't know about the UK, but in the US a woman must take active steps change her name upon marriage -- it doesn't just happen automatically. Which raises the question: if she hasn't changed her name, is she properly known as "Jamie Lee Curtis, Baroness Haden-Guest"? --Jfruh 23:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Under UK rules she wouldn't be either — peerages replace surnames, so her legal name is "The Right Honourable Jamie Lee, Baroness Haden-Guest" as far as British law is concerned (the article should probably mention this). I can't comment on US law, as I know next to nothing about it. However, I'm almost certain we don't have a policy on what to do when legal names in different jurisdictions clash. As the title is British, however, it makes sense to use British conventions when using it as part of her name. Proteus (Talk) 00:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I changed the lede to match this info. It would be nice to get some kind of confirmation on her actual legal name in the US. --Jfruh 21:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Not to be nit-picky about the name, but I think that the title shouldn't be used as the very first name in the article unless we have some confirmation that she legally changed her name to same in the US. I know as you said that her name changed automatically under British law to reflect her husband's title, but since she's US citizen resident in the US most of the time, I think her name under US law should come first. Anyway, as you note she doesn't legally have a surname, yet her surname is listed as "Haden-Guest" in the edit you just made... --Jfruh 01:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I definitely don't think that it is necessary to mention the title at the top as she never uses it:

"Nobody addresses me as Lady Guest anywhere except perhaps at the House of Lords. It's what they do there—and it's probably the only place in the world where anyone will address me in that manner even if I go, `Oh no, no, no, just call me Jamie.'"

As it is mentioned further down that is enough. Arniep 20:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

It is our policy to start articles with full legal names, regardless of what people use, so what she says is totally irrelevant (especially as she doesn't even appear to know what her title is, which is rather careless of her). See, for instance, Thomas Pakenham, Bertrand Russell and Colin Moynihan. Proteus (Talk) 23:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

But you haven't answered the question of whether it is her legal name in the country where she lives and was (I believe) married. The version we had a while back -- "Jamie Lee Curtis (born November 22, 1958), known under British law as The Right Honourable Jamie Lee, Baroness Haden-Guest" -- seems to me the best way around that question until it is answered definitively. --Jfruh 23:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Proteus has an obsession with titles. It is just completely inappropriate to include this at the top of an article of a hollywood actress especially as she has said she is never addressed as that and never uses it. Arniep 01:14, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I have an obsession with accuracy. If you have a problem with that, I suggest you find something else to do with your time, since Wikipedia clearly isn't for you. Proteus (Talk) 22:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately it's not what policy says the article should start with (and would be a completely unprecedented format). Proteus (Talk) 22:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I guess my question for you, Proteus, is: Why should the law of a country where she does not live and of which she is not a citizen determine her legal name, or determine her "first citation" name in Wikipedia? I think this may be a case where different jurisdictions would consider her to have different legal names. What does policy have to say about that? --Jfruh 23:32, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't consider it an issue — it simply says that people with titles have articles starting with them. Proteus (Talk) 16:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, perhaps it should consider that an issue. I shall take it up over there then. --Jfruh 18:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Just to point out, US citizens may not accept British titles. It is the law. By doing so, they relinquish their US citizenship. Barring evidence that Curtis has done so, the Baroness title is simply what the folks in the UK call her. Risker 05:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Then I will point out that there is no such law in the U.S. What you refer to is called the Titles of Nobility Amendment, which was proposed by congress as an amendment to the U.S. Constitution. (in the early 1800's) Although being passed by the Senate and the House, requires ratification by two-thirds of the states to become effective law. (And has been passed by twelve states as of this time) It needs another 26 states before it could become law. Atom 06:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Addressing her it would correctly be "Lady Haden-Guest". In introducing, "Lady Haden-Guest, Baroness of Saling". All titled people may "style" themselves as they desire (or as the Queen desires). As such, it would seem that Lady Haden-Guest prefers to be styled as "Jamie Lee Curtis". Atom 16:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Peerage title in opening paragraph

From Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies):

While the article title should generally be the name by which the subject is most commonly known, the subject's full name should be given in the lead paragraph, if known. Many cultures have a tradition of not using the full name of a person in everyday reference, but the article should start with the complete version.

No-one would argue that the article should be at Jamie Lee Curtis, Baroness Haden-Guest as the title should be the most commonly used name. However, according to Wikipedia guidelines, the opening paragraph should include the complete version whether it's in everyday use or not. JRawle (Talk) 13:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The full title should NOT be the first mentioned as she is rarely, if ever, referred to by the full title. The MOS guidance above does not require that it must be the first mentioned, only suggests that the title should be mentioned in the lede. older ≠ wiser 13:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

...the article should start with the complete version, and to me, "start with" means it comes first. But I won't change it again and start an edit war (although I have made a slight change as "Jamie Lee" is not part of her "title"). JRawle (Talk) 14:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I think your change is fine. I don't really know (or care all that much) what the official title is. There needs to be a element of common sense as well -- if a person is not commonly known by the title it seems rather peculiar to put forward that title in the first instance of the lede as if it were common. older ≠ wiser 14:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The current version seems fine to me. Proteus (Talk) 14:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

It should be 'Lady Haden-Guest' not Baroness. No-one except Wikipedia refers to the wife of a Baron as a Baroness, however "correct" it may be in absolute terms. We make ourselves look like idiots for saying so. David | Talk 22:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

So if I were to provide a counter-example to your claim, let's say Burke's calling the wife of the late Lord Soames "The Baroness Soames" [1], you'd stop doing this? Proteus (Talk) 22:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll take that edit as a "no", then. Come on, you're not this ridiculous — the whole "backing up assertions" business works both ways, you know. I've provided a respectable source doing what you're saying is never done, so are you going to provide one saying that calling Barons' wives Baronesses should never be done, or am I to assume you're just going to ignore the talk page and revert until I get bored and go away? Proteus (Talk) 23:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

XY theory

One thing that I feel should be mentioned would be the fact that many people believe she is a verified XY female. Thats the reason why her children are adopted btw, she is infertile and doesnt have a uterus/ovaries. 67.182.22.63 01:26, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

This is not what you initially wrote. You initially wrote "One thing that I feel should be mentioned would be the fact that she is a verified XY female. Thats the reason why her children are adopted btw, she is infertile and doesnt have a uterus/ovaries." Please provide a reliable and verifiable citation that proves your claim. Note that this is substantially different from the citation you need to prove "many people believe", though I'd like to see a citation for that as well. --Yamla 01:52, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe it.

She was in my biology book (though that was twenty years ago) as having Androgen insensitivity syndrome; which would make her XY. But I don't have the citation, so without citation it couldn't be included in the article.--69.171.35.198 21:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

To my knowledge, there is no reliable source that this rumor is true; you might have a difficult time even finding a reliable source to establish that the rumor exists. The best piece I've seen on the rumor is on snopes.com, but I doubt snopes meets the standards of W:V and W:RS. (Snopes concludes after investigation that the rumor is unsubstantiated and unlikely). I imagine that a reasonable number of people head to the wiki entry to see if the rumor is true, but I wouldn't want to write anything about it without thinking for a while about the verifiability and living persons policies.TheronJ 21:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

this is an urban myth big time. Adamshappy 19:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it is an urban myth but it should at least be mentioned on the page, even if only to say that it's an urban myth ... I came the page specifically to see if this were true or not and I had to look on the talk page to find the link to snopes, which, although it does settle the issue (at least for me), is not an ideal way to find info ... There should be a topic called "Jamie Lee Curtis in Popular Culture" or something that addresses this issue. 24.18.35.120 05:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree it is worth mentioning. --zandperl 03:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Done. --zandperl 03:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Klinefelter syndrome is only present in males (albeit not biologically normal males). Please consider removing the reference to the Klinefelter codition as it is impossible. Nat 01:59, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed and done. I also deleted the CAIS and PAIS stuff as the AIS description is wikified and anyone wanting to know more about the condition can jump to it. Anything about the degree of AIS she has is base speculation at best as there seems to be no credible evidence that she even has the condition.--Lepeu1999 15:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I've been watching Halloween a lot and I think that we should mention something about the XY theory. I came to this page to verify if it was true or not and I would like to see it mentioned somewhere, even just the fact that it's an urban legend. Thanks. Tlynhen 04:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that she is probably XY female and what is so wrong with that? Why is it assumed to be a horrible thing to say about her/him? Just look at her/him, obviously XY. We need to have a vote on this to include it in the article. I hereby vote "Yes".

Vitucci grandfather

Someone added this claim, no doubt from the AION website (a website that lists actresses of Italian descent). They say that Tony Curtis' grandfather was an Italian named Vitucci, but it is quite explicitly stated here that his mother was a Helen Klein.[2] Does anyone have a reliable source for the Vitucci thing? Mad Jack 06:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

the source is an italian book, "La banalità del bene", where, in an interview, Tony Curtis says he had a grandparent called Vitucci.

Claims she was "born with both male and female sex organs" or Turner syndrome

I came to this article after not only hearing about this rumor many times over the years but also when reading the following about her "intersexuality" on snopes.com:

“ So? Is she, or isn't she?

We may never know. No one but Ms. Curtis, her parents, and her doctors has the definitive answer to this one, and none of them is talking. Curtis has repeatedly declined deigning to provide a response to this rumor, and her physicians — even if they had something to say and wanted to say it — are bound by doctor-patient confidentiality strictures.

”

The consensus above seemed to be that the rumor was worthy of mentioning in the article, and a google search for "Jamie Curtis hermaphrodite" yeilds over 60,000 results, yet I see that references to it are continuously removed.

So what is the consensus about this? It has been discussed in the press just a couple of weeks ago so it the rumor certainly seems notable - heck if I came here to read about this surely others do? Thoughts? - Glen 04:12, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:BLP suggests caution. If you have reliable sources that the urban legend exists, it might be reasonable to write up a note stating that the legend exists, but is discredited. TheronJ

The legend exists, and I came to this page to find out if it is true...Alas, without a mention here I'm left at the mercy of internet anecdotes.

Extremely unlikely that Curtis has Turner syndrome. Average height for untreated patients is 4 foot 7 inches; even treated patients are shorter than average. There are also several other physical characteristics closely related to Turner syndrome that Curtis does not exhibit. Very brief reference here. [3]

This legend should definitely be addressed, with notes as the the unknown nature of it. It is a common enough rumor, and I think many people, including myself, will come to wikipedia to see if it is true.

Snopes provides a good page on the rumor, and could be used as a reference.

http://www.snopes.com/movies/actors/jamie.htm

MightyAtom 04:32, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Being included on Snopes.com is not enough to be included here. However, so long as this is a dead page, it should not be brought up here. JDoorjam Talk 03:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Google News isn't a very good search -- it only gets very recent news stories. It's not hard to find sources to establish that the rumor exists. The consensus, however, has been that the rumor is nasty enough that it doesn't belong here even if it can be sourced. (See below) TheronJ 11:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

What is "nasty" about being XY or a hermaphrodite? Are you saying such people are nasty? It is perfectly normal, my brother is a hermphrodite hence my interest in the subject and he/she is totally normal and not worth less than you or anyone else. Also, the fact that Jamie Lee Curtis refuses to comment tells me that the issues is more complicated than a simple denial could honestly address. She/he is probably XY or a hermaphrodite so let's just get it out and get it over with.

Newer picture

I need a more recent picture for a wikinews article on Jamie Lee Curtis, but I don't get the image liscensing with actors and actresses. So can someone upload a fair use picture of her on Wikipedia, and then I'll upload it on Wikinews? Thanx. íslenskur fellibylur #12 _(samtal) 15:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The urban legend resurfaces

Curtis has been the subject of an urban legend that she was born an intersexual. Curtis has refused to comment on the legend, and there is no verifiable evidence to support what snopes.com refers to as a "nasty rumor."

I noticed that someone re-posted the urban legend stuff.[4]. I'm very uncomfortable deciding one way or the other, because (1) the urban legends certainly exist, and I'm sure people head to this page to look them up, but (2) without many reliable sources, I'm uncomfortable with how close we are skirting to Wikipedia's biography of living persons policy. I tried to add some sources and clarify it, but I'll probably also post something on the biography noticeboard for more input. Any thoughts? TheronJ 13:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

This is a really good example of where the line is between derogatory gossip that should be removed from talk pages and legitimate discussion of what sourced material to put or not to put in the article. According to the snopes source, it is only gossip. Wikipedia living person bios shouldn't contain mere gossip - either good or bad. WAS 4.250 15:51, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I think WAS 4.250 is overstating the rule. (I am not saying that the gossip necessarily belongs in the article, but I'm interested in hearing people's opinions.)

For reference, here are the relevant sections of WP:BLP:

In the case of significant public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources to take information from, and Wikipedia biographies should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out.

— WP:BLP

Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He denies it, but the New York Times publishes the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation may belong in the biography, citing the New York Times as the source.

— WP:BLP

The fact that the urban legend is "gossip" does not, by itself, mean it gets deleted. It's certainly verifiable gossip, but I question whether it's notable, particularly given that it's (1) mean and (2) probably not true. Thoughts? TheronJ 15:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Note my use of "only" and "mere". Sometimes gossip becomes notable and then "only" and "mere" do not apply. For example, if the New York Times mentiones some gossip as being worthy of noticing because it impacts an election, then it would not be "mere gossip". WAS 4.250 22:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)…—±

Strongly support the removal of that nonsense. Good job, WAS and company. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

you people are crazy to work on this site and think you are doing something! go to Urban Dictionary and be an editor too!

So has the claim or rumor been published in the New York Times or equally reliable source? The internet doesn't satisfy that requirement. Edison 18:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Strictly for discussion purposes, here is a version of the page with sources provided for the rumor. I don't think reliable source is an issue; this is more an issue of notability and WP:BLP. TheronJ 18:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Someone else's autobiography is a reliable source for a rumour? (And incidentally, it wasn't Bob Dylan's mother who invented White-Out, it was Mike Nesmith's.) I do agree that this is a WP:BLP issue in the main; however, the vast majority of urban legends are never mentioned in the articles relating to the subjects, so I cannot think of a reason why this one should be in this article. Risker 19:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I absolutely agree that the strong consensus is to leave the rumor out per WP:BLP and WP:NN, I was just focusing the debate. Thanks, TheronJ 19:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)