Talk:Julianne Moore

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Featured articleJulianne Moore is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 3, 2013.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 28, 2013Peer reviewReviewed
September 21, 2013Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article

Birth place?[edit]

Although most sources seem to say she was born in North Carolina, CBS News says she was born in Boston [1], and so does Yahoo Movies [2], both very reliable sources. Does anyone know for sure? I've changed it to Boston for the moment. JackO'Lantern 18:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Internet Movie Data Base also indicates her birthplace is Fayetteville, NC; Fort Bragg. Considering her father's military career, I would suspect the Fort Bragg is correct!

IMDB is almost never reliable. They are somewhat reliable for old movie credits, but not reliable at all when it comes to personal info. Her parents moved around a lot, that's why I think the confusion is out there. I would trust CBS News, especially with Yahoo! Movies confirming that (both are more reliable than the IMDB, that's for sure)JackO'Lantern 20:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

On several occasions, I have heard Ft. Bragg, NC. This can be found easily by pulling the military records of her father. Boston is probably the work of an agent, since it sounds more artsy.

It is possible that her father was at Ft. Bragg when she was born in Boston and people just assumed that she was born in Ft. Bragg Kneazle kid (talk) 19:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I checked the North Carolina Birth Index on Ancestry.com, and she indeed was born in North Carolina. Stutzey (talk) 20:32, 23 August 2008 (UTC)stutzey

Ok Yumikt (talk) 10:17, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Atheism?[edit]

I do not think that the atheist category should be used here. The only source for it is [www.celebatheists.com]. The website is very unreliable, is very POV-ed to the atheist viewpoint. It also has many miscategorized entries already. It has Ray Romano as an atheist, when he is known to be a devout Catholic, and has Einstein as an atheist, when he is known to have been a pantheistic Jew. Their quote from Ray Romano is clearly just a joking quote, with God saying something along the lines of "Yes, I do exist." They list Einstein using a quote where he actually says that he does think God exists. Moore's only quote was also clearly a joking quote and is along the lines of Romano's. Why anyone takes CelebAtheists seriously is beyond me, but it shouldn't be used as a reference. Dr. Hannibal Lecter 21:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed and so changed. Othersider (talk) 01:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Einstein was an atheist 203.122.109.7 (talk) 14:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
No he wasn't. Othersider (talk) 05:30, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I guess this is still an issue. The source has been improved and I have no doubt she said it, but it is synthesis. She was not asked "are you an atheist?". She was asked what she would say to God at the pearly gates. She didn't answer "nothing, because I'm an atheist". She said "wow I was wrong. You really do exist." The old "person arriving at the pearly gates" is a joke staple, so how do we know Moore wasn't delivering a punchline? Given the context, she may have been replying in a glib manner, she may have been making a joke, she may have been deflecting a question that was nobody's business but her own, or she may have been confirming that she is an atheist. It's an indirect answer to an indirect question and is too vague and too open to interpretation. The problem is that she did not make a straight forward statement, and taking WP:BLP into account, we should always err on the side of caution, even if that sometimes we mean we miss something. If Moore was a genuine atheist and it was a significant issue for her, I would expect there to be something else that could be reliably sourced to confirm it. I've tried to find a record of an interview where she discusses her religious views, and I haven't been able to. I think we need something more compelling as we seem to be making a major assumption based on a comment that is not absolute. Rossrs (talk) 00:27, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The question asked is one in a series of staple questions in an interview on that show. There is nothing directly asked, there is nothing directly confirmed, and she did not say, in any form of the statement, that she is indeed atheist. In this case, using the Actors Studio answer to state that she is atheist is no more valid from an article quoting that from the San Francisco Examiner than it is from celebatheists.com. The statement is not confirmation of a belief, or lack thereof. In this case, using that answer to conclude "atheist" is far more "editor opinion" and interpretation. This requires nothing less than a frank admission "I am atheist". Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:42, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
The synthesis occurred with the San Francisco Examiner reporter, who gauged Moore's response to the question and concluded "atheist". The reporter included Moore in a list of the sexiest atheists. No wiki editor was involved, so no violation of WP:SYNTH. Binksternet (talk) 02:07, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Whether, as you contend, the reporter is guilty of synthesis, or this article is, it still requires a direct statement. You simply cannot take that statement and declare she is atheist. WP:BLP requires a definitive source, not conjecture based on Actors Studio response. This is contrary to WP:BLP. I have posted a question at WP:BLP/N regarding this. As it stands, you have two editors who feel it is inappropriate to include this specific source as proof and one who wants it to stand. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I saw this because of a post at the BLPN. You can't use the "San Francisco Examiner" as a reliable source. There is no fact checking there at all. Articles are written by writers that are contracted and paid on a "per view" basis. These are not actual reporters (in fact they don't even call themselves reporters). Mostly just local people that like to write. And yes, I write for them in a different city. Never had a single word fact checked on anything I ever published. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Thanks for that update! Examiner bad. I will not push anything coming from that source. Binksternet (talk) 04:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

"Often noted for her striking red hair"[edit]

"Often noted for her striking red hair" - is that really the most important thing about Julianne Moore, that it needs to be stated in the introduction? Even more important than her four Oscar nominations apparently. "Bruce Willis, often noted for his striking bald head"...? No. 172.200.38.27 18:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Does the collar match the cuffs? I will have to watch boogie nights again. 76.186.118.246 (talk) 05:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Photo irony[edit]

It's ironic, isn't it, that movie stars, who regularly have what must be among the most expensive makeup and photography, wind up in Wiki articles being represented by public domain shots taken by fans? (We have to thank David Shankbone, of course, for making one available at all.) Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk) 18:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Marriage[edit]

On "Late Night with Conan O'Brien" tonight (September 26, 2008) Julianne noted this entry and that someone, presumably Sundar Chakravarthy himself, keeps adding that he was her first husband, back in the 80s, but that this is untrue. She was never married to this person. The entry has just (within the last two minutes) edited to reflect this. Good work, Wikipedians!Dreamalynn (talk) 05:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I was just coming here to do that. Nice job, folks. I alerted IMDb (I imagine many others did as well) and hopefully they'll remove it promptly. 98.15.243.11 (talk) 05:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it should refer to a public denial because that implies there might possibly be some truth to it. I think the article, if it says anything about Chakravarthy, should state that Moore stated the wikipedia article was vandalized to claim a nonexistent marriage. --JamesAM (talk) 05:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
The user 70.121.198.67 continually reverts my edits on this matter. Should it stay or go? Ofthesun1 (talk) 05:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
There's an apparent edit war going on here over this. Whoever Sundar and/or his pals are, they're bound and determined to keep this lie in this entry and will use inappropriate, sexist language in the process for fun. It's vandalism, at this point, plain and simple. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreamalynn (talkcontribs) 05:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, failed to sign that last contribution. Dreamalynn (talk) 05:27, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Actually this "person" fails the notability guidelines, anything mentioning him in the article should be deleted per WP:BIO --70.121.198.67 (talk) 05:33, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
How about her mention of the errant nature of Wikipedia articles? I'd imagine that should be noted in some way. Ofthesun1 (talk) 05:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
You should try reading over WP:MoS first. Articles are for informal, notable, or pending notable facts and the occasional controversies. Putting rants inside articles is not what WP is here for. --70.121.198.67 (talk) 05:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
I unfortunately and regretfully added the material back into the article without realizing that the information was indeed untrue. I thought that it was just part of the article that had been forgotten. This happened long before the recent interview on Late Night with Conan O'Brien. I'm very apologetic, but I really think that this is a matter that she needs to take up with IMDB. This is the link where I found the false information. Obviously the person who posted that is deranged. I would also like to add that encyclopedic content can only be based on the information that you can readily obtain from sources that are considered credible. I made the mistake of thinking that IMDB was one of those sources. My bad! --Candy156sweet (talk) 05:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
It seems to me that special care must be taken when relying upon information from another site which is user-edited. IMDb is such a site. Though there is a paid editor process there, it is (very) unclear how well their editors vett publicly submitted information, or even if they do at all. Dreamalynn (talk) 11:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I know that I will not be making that same mistake twice. --Candy156sweet (talk) 00:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

sLaughterhouse II[edit]

This movie doesn't actually exist... See http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0207740/faq —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.27.140.208 (talk) 06:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Freckleface Strawberry[edit]

Just wondering if there was any particular reason why there is no mention of Julianne Moore being a children's book author, namely Freckleface Strawberry. It's also a musical now. I've included a link here of the site for the musical that describes the book. There is also a Youtube video of Julianne Moore. Now that I mention it, why isn't there a page for Freckleface in general? Kaylahawk (talk) 06:24, 16 December 2010 (UTC) http://www.frecklefacethemusical.com/about-the-book.html

Removed OR text[edit]

I have removed text that I believe is Original Research. I have parked the text here for now. If other editors disagree with my edits we can discuss here and add back if there is consensus.

"and nine[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9] of her films and roles deal with LGBT topics." --BwB (talk) 02:05, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
  1. ^ "www.markwahlberg.com". Retrieved 2012-06-05.
  2. ^ "SparkNotes: The Shipping News: Character List". Retrieved 2012-06-05.
  3. ^ "Far from Heaven (2002) - Plot Summary". Retrieved 2012-06-05.
  4. ^ "The Hours (2002) - Plot Summary". Retrieved 2012-06-05.
  5. ^ "Savage Grace". Retrieved 2012-06-05.
  6. ^ "Premiere of "Pippa Lee" reveals her private lives, some of them gay | AfterEllen.com". Retrieved 2012-06-05.
  7. ^ "A Single Man (2009) - Plot Summary". Retrieved 2012-06-05.
  8. ^ "Amanda Seyfried in lesbian kiss with Julianne Moore in the film Chloe | Metro.co.uk". Retrieved 2012-06-05.
  9. ^ "The Kids Are All Right (2010) - Plot Summary". Retrieved 2012-06-05.
It's not only WP:OR, it's also WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:TRIVIA. Having worked in films that deal with LGBT topics is nothing more than coincidence. Many films and TV shows deal with LGBT issues which doesn't say anything about the actors themselves. No more than playing a serial killer makes the actor themselves sympathetic to serial killers. They're actors payed to play a part. They're not taking a stand just by being in something. I agree with the removal. Dismas|(talk) 02:14, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Agreed. If it wasn't OR and SYNTH, it wouldn't need 9 references either. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:53, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Some review comments per discussion at TFA[edit]

Ok, I'll try to explain where I consider the prose problems lie, based on reading the opening few sections.

  • There's a very chronological take on her career, leading to many sentences starting with 'In [date]', or similar. To some extent this is inescapable but it seems to be taken to extreme.
    • I tired to vary the wording as much as possible, but I can't really see any other way of presenting material in an article like this..?
  • Her minor role as a doctor in The Fugitive appears twice.
    • Well only because the second mention is stating Spielberg's inspiration behind casting her in The Lost World, but fine I've removed that fact. --Loeba (talk) 17:45, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
  • There's a lot of language that feels like puffery or luvviness -- 'critically acclaimed', 'biggest hits', 'impressed', 'delighted', 'famous', 'crucial', 'leading lady', 'immensely popular', 'blockbuster', 'honor' &c&c; I'm not saying this all needs stripping out, but a very little of it goes a long way. There's also some unencyclopedic phrasing, eg 'Several actresses vied for the role', 'pitting her opposite'.
    • I reworded both of the latter statements, and have removed a couple of the words you've listed...but to be honest, I think this is an example of what I call "peacock paranoia" on Wikipedia. IMO many users are far too touchy about including anything positive. If it is sourced and accurate, I don't see why such words can't be used. There are also several negative statements, which balances everything out. --Loeba (talk) 17:45, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
  • There's some repetition of words eg 'frequent(ly)' appears twice in four sentences in 'Early life'. On the other hand, some of the word choices appear to be variation for the sake of variation; it sometimes feels formulaic.
    • Fixed the "frequently" issue; as for your second comment here, that's just not something I can fix myself...it's impossible for me to spot myself. I'm very happy for you to make copyedits to try and improve this. --Loeba (talk) 17:45, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
  • There are a lot of quotations from Moore, some of which feel trivial. It gives it a gossip-column feel, imo.
    • Several quotations have been cut or paraphrased. --Loeba (talk) 17:45, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
  • What does 'Continuing in the vein of Hollywood productions' mean?
    • Changed to "Her next release was also a Hollywood production", how's that? --Loeba (talk) 17:45, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
  • 'She visited a pornography set to help prepare her for the role, who she later described as "such a sad person; she moved me tremendously".' & 'Amber required both a confidence and vulnerability'. Grammar x2.
    • Damn, I actually re-read that sentence recently (it was added somewhat hastily in response to a comment at FAC) and knew that it wasn't good but never got round to copy editing it. I've decided to just remove the first of your quotations, and slightly tweaked the second. --Loeba (talk) 17:45, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
  • There are a lot of reference citations in the middle of sentences, which are rarely needed and make it harder to read.
    • Rather ironically, this was done to help it pass FAC - to make it 100% safe against spotchecking. I maintain that it's useful to know exactly where a fact is coming from, rather than listing several references at the end of a sentence (which would be the alternative in these instances, and doesn't look very sightly either...) --Loeba (talk) 17:45, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Hope this is more helpful than off-putting. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:42, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for giving proper feedback - I'm busy today but will respond soon. --Loeba (talk) 16:16, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Responses now given to each point. --Loeba (talk) 17:45, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Filmography/awards section[edit]

Since she has separate pages for her filmography and awards sections, I find it redundant to then have a table for both on her main page when the whole point of having separate pages is to remove it from her main, to get rid of copious amounts of information, to then help with browsing and cuts down loading times of the page. Who is for having information on her main and who is for leaving on the "main" article on there Lady Lotus (talk) 17:05, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm in favor of having the info in the separate article(s). Dismas|(talk) 17:19, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
I have no particular views. However, I would point out that the article shouldn't have a subheading followed simply by a {{main}} then another subheading with another {{main}}, because WP:Summary style tells us that "The original article should contain a section with a summary of the subtopic's article as well as a link to it." (emphasis added) An alternative would be a "see also" section, although ideally those should be avoided in comprehensive articles where the link, if appropriate, should be in the body of the article instead. Another alternative: use a few sentences of text, rather than tables? Another: perhaps have {{see also}} links to the filmography and awards under the "acting career" heading? BencherliteTalk 17:21, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing the issue to the talk page. I personally dislike seeing completely empty sections that just link to another article - I don't see why we can't provide some information here (kind of like WP:SUMMARY). In case it's not clear, only her most notable films and awards are currently listed, and both tables are small...no "copious amounts of information". This is also a really easy way for readers to know the most important films of Moore's career, and her main award nominations. They may not want to see all c. 50 films Moore has appeared in, or the dozens of award nominations she has received (which is their only option if they click on the "main" articles). I really really think it's useful; if it was up to me, all actor pages would have a "select filmography" (unless their list of credits is short, that is). --Loeba (talk) 17:27, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Small tables? The awards table lists 20 of her 30 individual (i.e. not ensemble/cast) nominations and awards, so not much has been trimmed there, has it? And I'm not entirely sure I see what counts as one of her "most acclaimed" or "highest grossing" films when the table includes half of the films she's ever appeared in and doesn't tell the reader whether a particular film qualifies under one or another (or both) categories. For "most acclaimed", how high a percentage on Rotten Tomatoes is needed to qualify? And of course this relates to the film, not to her - she could have a poor performance in a well-received film and the film would still be on the RT list, or vice versa and it wouldn't be. How many of her highest grossing films are included? Would another way to do it be to say that, according to RT, the [5/10/whatever] films in which she has appeared that received the most critical acclaim are these, and that the [5/10/whatever] films in which she appeared that made the most money are these? BencherliteTalk 17:46, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Well she actually has far more awards nominations than that, but Lady Lotus actually trimmed many of these today (which is another issue I intend to address at some point, I'm busy with something else right now). Yes, something along the lines of your alternative suggestion is a good idea. I'll try and get to it later this week. --Loeba (talk) 17:53, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
If you want to write paragraphs of the awards she's been nominated for or the films she has been in, that's fine.
Example:
Moore has received numerous nominations for her work in film and television, including an Academy Award, Golden Globe Award, and a SAG Award nomination for her role in Boogie Nights. She received a Satellite Award for Best Supporting Actress – Motion Picture for her role in Boogie Nights and also won a Golden Globe, Emmy, SAG Award for Best Actress for her role as Sarah Palin in Game Change
But the tables are a bit much and the filmography table has "thriller" and "horror" in it's notes which isn't even MoS with filmography tables. And about trimming her awards, I trimmed according to WP:INDISCRIMINATE; meaning you don't have to list every single award she's ever been nominated for, the film critics awards are not prestigious. I left all the prestigious awards alone, like the academy awards, golden globes, etc. Lady Lotus (talk) 20:29, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
The Berlin Golden Bear and Venice Volpi Cup are not prestigious?! They most definitely are. And for an article that is specifically listing an individual's awards and nominations, I think it's necessary that this is comprehensive. I'm quite sure all WP:FLs of awards are expected to list everything. Anyway back to this topic - like I said, I will see what I can do in the next few days (I'm focussing my efforts on another article right now). --Loeba (talk) 20:47, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Have you even read WP:INDISCRIMINATE? It's the whole reason why there is a section like that to discuss things like not having a laundry list of every minor or regional award. Taking out those awards helps keep the clutter of awards to a minimum. Anyone can make an award and give it out and call it prestigious. And I'm quite sure if I looked at most of the WP:FL's actors awards list, they could use trimming too. You seem to think that you're the only editor that can edit this page too. You revert most anything that tries to be edited. I'll edit to be inline with the compromise of getting rid of the tables. Lady Lotus (talk) 21:01, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I "revert most anything that tries to be edited"? That's...not true. Look at the edit history, how many edits have I reverted? About 7, ever? I know I happen to have reverted you twice today, but I don't like doing it (I just felt strongly about both those things). Anyway sure, you go ahead and make changes in line with what we've agreed here - saves me the work! --Loeba (talk) 21:14, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit request, 3 December 2013[edit]

Under "Personal life," first sentence. "Who" should be "whom." 12.221.32.234 (talk) 09:51, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Done. --Stfg (talk) 11:13, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Dangling modifier[edit]

I've tried to fix [3] the rather glaring dangling modifier in sentence 2 of the lead ("A prolific cinema actress since the early 1990s, Moore's career has involved…"), which had apparently been introduced in this edit [4] after the FA promotion. Anybody mind if I make the same change also in the front page excerpt? Fut.Perf. 11:23, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

unneeded template[edit]

Is that "part of the series" template really needed? The only two other articles are anyhow linked in main body. --Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 13:28, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Yep, it's unnecessary. -- KRIMUK90  01:44, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Request for Comments[edit]

There is an RfC on the question of using "Religion: None" vs. "Religion: None (atheist)" in the infobox on this and other similar pages.

The RfC is at Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.

Please help us determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:29, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

British?[edit]

I understand that she has British citizenship, but she's not actually British. Her citizenship is just a formality, that she only has because of her mother. She never even lived there. I am going to be bold and remove it. JDDJS (talk) 22:32, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

It's not just a formality - Moore has said that her mother "never let us forget that we weren't fully American" ([5]), that she always felt "half and half" ([6]), and that she was "really thrilled" to get British citizenship ([7]). Based on this I think it's fair to say that she considers herself "American–British" (but it should probably be in that order rather than "British–American" as previously). There used to be a hidden note in the lead to explain this, but then at some point it was removed and she became only "American". Then more recently, I think, someone else added back the dual nationality but only with a link and less explanation. I'll add a hidden note again so that it's clearer. --Loeba (talk) 10:52, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

--86.72.50.12 (talk) 23:13, 23 January 2016 (UTC) So, it's an American actress of British descent.--86.72.50.12 (talk) 23:13, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

She's not just descended from Britain though - that suggests a distant link. But her mum was 100% Scottish, and Moore grew up being told that she was not fully American; even before she applied for British citizenship she told a journalist she was "half and half" (see links above). So it's apparent that she considers herself half Scottish and we should respect her view. --Loeba (talk) 18:36, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Loeba Hi! You argue above that "American-British" is preferable to "British-American". Any particular reason why? (We've had a discussion on Saoirse Ronan, and we currently have "Irish and American" to designate a dual citizenship.) Wolfdog (talk) 12:21, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Due to a lack of response, I'm going to change the lead to "British-American" because I believe it serves to show that she is primarily associated with the United States, while also representing her British citizenship. However, I wonder whether "British and American" is not more preferable. "American-British" certainly seems unusual to me.}}Wolfdog (talk) 23:50, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

@Loeba and Samuelhinchliffe1991: I apologize for using the wrong "ping" brackets above. Anyway, to reiterate: You two prefer "American-British" or "American-Scottish" to "British-American". Any particular reason why? Wolfdog (talk) 06:17, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

First time I've logged-in for a couple of months and I had a ping just yesterday, so odd how that happens. Face-smile.svg Anyway - yes I personally preference putting "American" first because she was born and lives there so it feels more appropriate. I have also come to prefer "Scottish" to "British" because Moore seems to specifically identify with this side of her heritage. When I was initially working on the article I had it as "British-American" but I've had a change of heart on the matter. Basically: I think we should just be as clear as possible. She's more American than British, so it should be the first nationality people see, and she has specific ties to Scotland so let's put that as the second nationality. --Loeba (talk) 14:25, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
It's interesting that your thinking goes in that vein, because in the U.S., we usually place American second to show a primary "Americanness." That's why American-British or American-Scottish looks so odd to me. Terms like "Irish American," "Chinese American," and "Italian American" are all well-established labels in the U.S. WP too, seems to prefer that ordering, in fact with articles specifically on "British American" and "Scottish American," though if we want to emphasize her dual citizenship, I wouldn't be opposed to the phrase "American and British" (or "American and Scottish") either. Wolfdog (talk) 16:22, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
But those terms suggest a person's heritage, and they're kind of casual. Leonardo DiCaprio can be grouped as an "Italian American" but we wouldn't introduce him as such on his Wikipedia article - formally, he is just American. The difference with Moore is that she actually has citizenship with both countries. I don't feel that "Scottish American" would communicate this, especially when you read the description in the article (ie, it suggests more of an ethnic group than a nationality). But it's not something clear cut, and tbh I'd be happy to go with whatever the majority decides is most appropriate...but we don't know what that is right now because no-one else has chipped in. An RfC would be useful. --Loeba (talk) 18:06, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm fine with your RFC idea. Your concerns are why I offered alternatives such as "American and Scottish". Wolfdog (talk) 00:20, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

There's no such thing as " Scottish Citizenship " Because Scottish are British. All Scottish hold British Citizenship since There is only British Citizenship — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.1.162.158 (talk) 13:44, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

She holds a British Citizenship, having a British Passport. Since She wanted to be British, according to her interview. And She classified herself as British. So Don't act like You know better than herself and change how She is. End of story — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.24.79.97 (talk) 13:51, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Personal Life[edit]

Julianne Moore is also an advocate/spokesperson for the Tuberous Sclerosis Alliance. She has been for quite some time now (at least 2003). Can someone please edit this on her information please? It is important to mention and raise awareness of Tuberous Sclerosis Complex. You can verify her support by going onto www.tsalliance.org thank you!

205.133.194.252 (talk) 18:04, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Why doesn't this article mention Eagle Eye?[edit]

I was reading through this article and there was no mention of Julianne Moore's role in the 2008 movie Eagle Eye. Is there a reason for this, or was it somehow missed when this article written? Thanks, Gluons12 talk 17:47, 20 June 2016 (UTC).

The film is listed in the Julianne Moore filmography, though her role was apparently uncredited. Perhabs a bit too minor for a mention in the main article. Dimadick (talk) 17:09, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I just wanted to make sure this wasn't missed when the article was written. Gluons12 talk 00:22, 22 June 2016 (UTC).

RfC[edit]

The consensus is that the nationality in the lead sentence should be American. Editors noted that Julianne Moore had only obtained British dual citizenship recently to honor her mother and had never moved to Britain. Cunard (talk) 05:23, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Editors have not reached a consensus about what is the most appropriate nationality to present in the lead sentence for Moore, who is a dual citizen. Options such as "British American", "American-British", and "British and American" have been proposed (also, "British" in any of the aforementioned options could just as well be replaced by "Scottish"), though more editors are needed to come to a consensus as to which is the most suitable. Thanks! Wolfdog (talk) 21:56, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

  • British and American - To avoid giving emphasis to a single nationality, which the other two alternatives seem to do. Meatsgains (talk) 14:04, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
  • British and American - per Meatsgains. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:44, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
    • @Meatsgains and Iazyges: That doesn't make any sense. Did either of you even read the article and the previous discussion? She has never lived in the UK. Undue emphasis would be on mentioning the UK in the lead at all. She's an American, from birth to present.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  05:43, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
  • American. Summoned by bot .We utilize "British-American" or "American-British" for people who have lived and worked in both countries, or who were born in one and moved to another. I see from the source that the subject was born in America and never moved to Britain, but obtained British citizenship as a kind of gesture late in life, to honor a relative. Therefore, to say in the lead that she is "British and American" by dint of that is misleading and undue emphasis. It will confuse the reader, who then must dig down in the article to find out that no, she has not emigrated to Britain and is not from that country. Coretheapple (talk) 17:58, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
  • American Of course, her dual citizenship as a loving tribute to her mother should be mentioned in the body of the article. But except for a brief time living at a U. S. military base in Germany as a teenager, she has always lived in the U. S. In my opinion, Kevin Spacey has a much stronger claim to be an American-British actor, due to his many years as a major figure on the London stage, and residence there. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:11, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
  • American per above comments. She is American, not British. Or perhaps Scottish-America if it's true as the article says that she considers herself half Scottish. Dicklyon (talk) 05:09, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
  • American. She's not British in any encyclopedic way, just obtained British dual citizenship, recently, as an honorary legalism.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  05:43, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
  • American per the aboves. Imagine if the situation were reversed. Calidum 23:52, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

It looks like the consensus is for "American". I will make the change in the next day or so unless there is any immediate reason raised (and I admit, I'm not great with WP policy, so stop me if you feel this is a misstep). Wolfdog (talk) 23:54, 6 January 2017 (UTC)


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Julianne Moore. 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) 06:08, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Julianne Moore. 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) 04:23, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Julianne Moore. 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) 09:47, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Julianne Moore. 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) 05:47, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Julianne Moore. 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) 05:47, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Infobox Image[edit]

I want to come to a consensus with all editors/users, who have interest to this particular subject, as to why we should change the photograph. User:TAnthony User:Krimuk2.0 User:Tenebrae User:NeilN There are two images I would like to discuss upon: the current image: File:Julianne Moore (15011443428).jpg, and the image that I believe is a better fit: File:Julianne Moore Cannes 2016 (cropped) (2).jpg. I would like to hear your opinions on the following subject, that way we can come to a consensus and prevent/avoid an edit war or any other conflict for that matter.

Thank you in advanced for your cooperation. Any other interested users/editors are welcome to participate and contribute. Film Enthusiast (talk) 06:30, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

"lower quality, poor resolution" for the image on the left and "higher resolution" for the image on the right are both incorrect. The one on the left is 151 KB and the one on the right is 67 KB. Having said that, both images are fine and I'm glad that you decided to post on the talk page instead of warring like before. The one on the right is already being used as the main image on Moore's filmography page, and we should avoid a repetition if an alternate is available. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:30, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm staying out of it. I took enough abuse at Talk:Jessica Chastain. That is not directed at anyone here.--Tenebrae (talk) 21:59, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

add height[edit]

add height