Talk:Anjelica Huston

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Anjelica Huston article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Biography: Actors and Filmmakers Start‑class

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers (assessed as Mid-importance).

California Start‑class

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Tense of the article

I've noticed that the tense of the article is in conditional, and I was thinking it should be in past tense rather than conditional. I'll change it if in the next few days it isn't decided otherwise. 69.92.82.104 21:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Picture

The picture we have up for her now is tiny and of terrible quality; does anyone have a better one? --DearPrudence 23:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The picture is cropped oddly and Anjelica is barely recognizable. Does anyone have a free image available that could be used? Rs09985 (talk) 03:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Name

Why is she listed as Anjelica Houston in Wikipedia? The usual spelling seems to be Huston. See [1] 130.73.65.53 (talk) 14:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment re Polanski

I've removed: "She was present in Jack Nicholson's mansion during Roman Polanski's rape of a 13 year old girl." As things stand this seems to be undue. There are no claims that she knew what was happening, only that she was in the same house, and saw the girl that Polanski raped after the event. The news reports are not suggesting that she had any involvement, and she is only quoted in regard to her view that the girl looked older than 13, her perception of the girl's demeanor, and her personal opinion on Polanski. None of which is notable in terms of Huston's life. While of some general interest, it doesn't seem to be significant enough to be worth including, and doing so gives the false impression that she may have, in some way, been involved or have known of what was going on. - Bilby (talk) 15:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're engaging in OR. It's been a notable event for 30 years, and reported in every nation on earth. The notability is conferred by that world wide reporting over more than a quarter of a century. It was widely reported then and now. Its notability is without question.99.141.254.118 (talk) 16:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure it isn't OR to consider the weight of something added to an article. It is of note in terms of the crime by Polanski. Should there be an article fully exploring this issue, then it should certainly be mentioned. It is not, however, of particular note in relation to a biography on Huston. The claim, as I understand it, is only that she was in the same house where a crime was committed and, not knowing what had happened, spoke to the victim after. That's it. Not that she was involved, nor that she allowed it to happen, or knew what was happening, or anything of significance. She was an unknowing bystander. - Bilby (talk) 16:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, OR. It's notable because it's been associated with her for over a quarter of a century and reported around the world. Hell, Jack Nicholson wasn't even there and his name is also deeply interwoven with it as well. At this point it may have even been reported, between 1977 and today, in every single news outlet in the US at least once - certainly in every western language and likely in one form or another on every nation on Earth.

It's a text book notable. Every bit of it, him, her, location, incident. It's an international cause célèbre.99.141.254.118 (talk) 16:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The question is whether or not it is a particularly notable part of Huston's life, of Polanski's, or simply of the event. I think it was of the event. Certainly, in what is a disappointingly short bio of a fairly significant actor, it looks like it has been given undue weight. If, as I suspect there will be, there is an article created covering the crime, then it becomes a very important part of that article. I just don't think it is an important part of this one. Anyway, I'll stop now and see if other opinions emerge. - Bilby (talk) 16:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it weren't notable the worlds press wouldn't have reported it as such for the last 30 years...99.141.254.118 (talk) 17:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional evidence of its notability from the dozens of books which prominently mention it: "In terms of his sexual tastes, Polanski, Huston told the cop, "Was a freak"."[2] This book also states that Polanski was taken by the DA and Police to Nicholsons home after he stated the girls accusation was "all a lie" only to have Huston torpedo him when she failed to back up his story. There exist numerous books discussing the subject.[3] Books about the Huston family, Nicholson, Crime, Cinema - all manner of titles (in addition to nearly every newspaper, magazine and TV channel) find it notable to mention Anjelica Huston in relation to the incident. I've re-added the entry based upon these references.99.141.254.118 (talk) 17:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned that you seem to have missed my point. It's the "in relation to the incident" that worries me. Sure, Huston's presence is notable in relation to the incident, but possibly not in relation to her life. And this article is about her life, not about the incident. Still, I'll raise it on WP:BLP/N and see where others sit. - Bilby (talk) 17:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The book about her family even mentions it. Do you think that her biography mentions it? [4] And do you think that would be relevant?99.141.254.118 (talk) 18:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it may be, but I still think it is undue in the article as it stands, especially as the statement, as presented now, doesn't provide any context, and adding context to prevent misinterpretation may cause serious weight issues. If it was more important I can see a reason for that, but I don't see it as important enough to warrant the problems it may cause. Anyway, I'll go with an RfC instead, as it may be a simpler solution. :) - Bilby (talk) 18:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Huston & Polanski

Please consider joining the feedback request service.

An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. Within 24 hours, this page will be added to the following list:

Biographies

When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

In regard to the addition of:

She was present in Jack Nicholson's mansion during Roman Polanski's rape of a 13 year old child.

(See Roman Polanski for background). The statement is properly sourced to CNN, and there is no question that she was in the mansion. Huston's involvement seems to be that she was present in the building when the event took place, but she was not aware of what occurred, either before, during or immediately after the event. However, she is included in discussions on the grounds that she was in the house and she spoke to the girl concerned after the event (but remained unaware at the time as to what had transpired), and, as per the CNN article, subsequently described her impressions of the girl and Polanski.

As outlined above, my concern is that the current bio of Angelica Huston is very short, and that including this line gives undue weight to her involvement in the event, as well as leaving her presence open to possible misinterpretation. I see it as notable in terms of the event, but not sufficiently notable in term's of Huston's life, as she only played a peripheral role in what happened.

On the other hand, another editor views this differently, and sees the reliable coverage of her presence at the event as establishing sufficient notability to include it in her article.

I can see the other editor's point, but I don't think this is necessarily a clear cut case. Thus other opinions would be valuable. :) - Bilby (talk) 18:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Page 150.[5] "But the really vital corroborative evidence Gunson had was not physical. It was the testimony of Anjelica Huston who would place Polanski in the bedroom with the girl." Remember, Polanski initially denied everything when picked up the next morning by the DA and Police. It was Huston that supported the charges.99.141.254.118 (talk) 18:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I still see that as notable in regard to the case, not Huston - or at least not sufficiently notable in relation to her to include in the article as it stands, given my concerns. But I'll step back for a bit, and I'll happily defer to any consensus. - Bilby (talk) 18:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll wait as well - but I do think being blamed in notable sources, and by Polanski, as being the person without who's testimony none of this could/would have occurred is one of many strong factors underscoring the strong notability of this incident in any overview of her life.99.141.254.118 (talk) 18:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Bilby. It leaves the impression, as written, of guilt by association. It needs clean up. Either expand the comment on the presence so it leaves no doubt but that she was not assisting in a crime, (which will probably lead to a similar outcome as what we have seen on the Polanski article), or take it out, rewrite the entirety of the personal life section to provide more information about the actress in all aspects, and resubmit. I would recommend the latter. Oberonfitch (talk) 18:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Specific discussion on Polanski/Huston prose

I've added this to the article:

Her on-and-off relationship with actor Jack Nicholson spanned from 1973 to 1990 and included an incident in which she became a witness for the prosecution at Roman Polanski's 1977 trial regarding the rape of a 13 year old girl[2] in Jack Nicholson's home. Her testimony, in which she arrived unexpectedly at the residence she had just recently shared with Nicholson, was used to place Polanski definitively in the bedroom with the victim.

Wiki'ed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.141.254.118 (talk) 19:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]