Jump to content

Talk:Russell Crowe/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Gay icon

Before anyone jumps on my freaking back for adding Russell as a gay icon, read this article:

http://www.contactmusic.com/new/xmlfeed.nsf/mndwebpages/crowe%20becomes%20gay%20icon

Extra image

Below is the image from The Insider for future use. The image may need to be resized.

File:Russell Crowe Insider promo.jpeg
Crowe packed on extra pounds to play the character of Dr. Jeffrey Wigand in The Insider.

Fourth Degree Posession

Can someone please tell me what this means?

I would like to know it as well. It's kind of hard to understand for an European. Could anyone please explain it? What are these Degrees of Posession? Thanks in advance!--Nemissimo II 19:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Quoted fuck

I've restored the 'fuck' in the GQ quote, as it is a direct quote from the article. see: http://www.guardian.co.uk/alqaida/story/0,12469,1433507,00.html kju 10:56, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I've had to restore it again. Whomever wishes to remove it or replace it with f*** might best see Wikipedia:Profanity first. kju 15:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

New Zealand American

Crowe is not a New Zealand-American by the Wikipedia definition:

"An American citizen or a person born in the United States of America who is: 

   * born in New Zealand
   * has any New Zealand ancestry"

Crowe is not an American citizen, nor was he born in America. Russell Crowe was born in Wellington, New Zealand, and has no American ancestry. kju 00:27, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Maori Ancestry

Is it true that he has Maori ancestry? He is list on the List of Māori people page. Indisciplined 17:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Hollywood

A lot of space is devoted to the section on temperatment (which is good), but there is little in the Hollywood section, and most of what is there is about a terrorist threat. More attention could be given to what this guy is known for, and why his has an article in wikipedia, which is making hollywood movies. The page could have an image of him also - Matthew238 08:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Japanese

Can he speak Japanese? How did he learn ?--Jondel 08:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Defamation warning

Under the heading, 'Temperament', the line "... which three men unsuccessfully used to attempt to extort money from him" is none-too-clever and should be deleted/seriously amended forthwith. (I'll leave the actual restructuring to those who have existing involvement with the page.) The men were acquitted of extortion-related offences, and according to media reports have now sued the state for malicious prosecution. The line cited runs a grossly serious risk of being defamatory; bearing in mind the men's willingness to litigate, the risk is not merely theoretical.203.3.176.10 02:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

YES!

There's already a reference in this article to the South Park episode. I was going to add it if there wasn't one. That's my favorite South Park episode ever.

"Making movies, making music, and fightin' 'round the world!"

Late Show

It is inaccurate to say that he was cast in a 1990 film after guest starring in the Late Show as Shirty the slightly aggressive bear - because the late show was on in 1992 and 1993!

Russell Crowe Australian?

From the information I have, Russell Crowe is not Australian nor does he have Australian citizenship. He is in the process of obtaining it but he is still not a Aussie.

Source: http://www.imdb.com/news/wenn/2006-01-27#celeb5

or can anyone prove that he is? I don't want to open a can of worms here but it is not accurate to say that he is Australian if in fact he isn't.--James Bond 09:56, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Hes holds australian citizenship now for certain. But im not sure if he still holds New Zealand citizenship.

Yes, he's certainly a New Zealand citizen - and will remain one until he dies unless he formally renounces his citizenship, which is an extremely rare occurence.

Russel Crowe On South Park

I loved how he called people "scrotum", "testicle" and "vagina" 70.49.206.25 03:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I removed Fightin' Around the World (TV Show) (2002) linking to South Park from the list, as it looks dubious --h2g2bob (talk) 23:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Needs citations

I've removed some material from the article, per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. If sources can be found, please add (with source) back to the article. --h2g2bob (talk) 00:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Family

Crowe also dated American actress Meg Ryan after they had an admitted affair while filming Proof of Life (2000) and in the past, he has been linked to Erica Baxter, Peta Wilson and Courtney Love.

Music

Crowe's early stage name as a musician was "Rus Le Roq" and he was billed as such while performing with the New Zealand production of The Rocky Horror Show. Crowe also toured with Grease in the Australian company.

Knitting?

It says under "Family Life" that knitting is a past time of Crowe's. It doesn't cite any references. Is this true? (DGOZ)

Dark Knight

This article currently lists Russell Crowe as having a cameo role in The Dark Knight, and where I do remember hearing a rumor of this some time ago, is there any confirmation of this casting decision? 24.24.90.148 22:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


Strange...

Very strange how this guy doesn't have a controversy section after his several fights... Oh yeah, he's white & this is wikipedia so never mind

Instead of sniping from the sidelines, why don't you create a controversy section with references and links? Oh yeah, you're an anon poster, so never mindYorkshiresky (talk) 17:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

You're blaming it on his "Whiteness"? Oh come on!!! And there is a section about his temper so why don't you shove it before I throw a phone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.47.15.38 (talk) 17:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Ha! Not only that, but he's part Maori! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.240.61.2 (talk) 04:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

That was the worst attempt at trolling I have ever seen, and you should feel bad. Also, I think Hitler was right. 24.95.247.110 (talk) 05:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Australian Citizenship

Is he an Australian Citizen yet? Im a little confused by the source provided.. Matt (talk) 05:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

:Please remember to add a reliable citation, or it will be removed. Matt (talk) 12:22, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Actually, i would like to take this discussion further. Although (if what you claim to be true, is true) Russell Crowe may be a dual type citizen, holding both New Zealand and Australian citizenship, i believe the lead sentence refers to in fact his nationality, something different to his citizenship. He is of New Zealand nationality, and has both New Zealand and Australian citizenship. I believe therefore, the lead sentence should state that he is of New Zealand nationality, and be left how it is. Please state what you believe before changing the article Matt (talk) 12:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
If you are going to make a distinction between nationality and citizenship then Russell Crowe clearly qualifies as an Australian actor. The reason being that he spent a good deal of his formative years there, indeed it is where he began his career as an actor. In fact I cannot recall a single New Zealand film in which he has had a role. Hence I will change the article to reflect these considerations.Ernest the Sheep (talk) 02:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
But alas, not nationality, which is what the sentence refers to. It is clear in the article that australia claims him to be an australian actor, but the lead is factually correct the way it was. He spent about half of his 'formative' years in Australia, and half in New Zealand. He was born in New Zealand, to New Zealand parents with New Zealand roots. He has nationality connection to Australia apart from where he made his acting carrer, and residing there currently, thus he is of New Zealand nationality. Arnold Schwarzenegger is not of American nationality, he is of Austrian (not Australian, dont go claiming him too) decent and is called an Austrian actor as such. And, he has appeared in New Zealand films. Best, Matt (talk) 06:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC) :).
I don't think it is very clear what the sentence refers to at all. According to Wikipedia guidelines nationality can refer to the country where a person is either a citizen or a national. So you would appear to be incorrect on that count. Of course these are only guidelines and a good helping of commonsense is also required lest we get bogged down in such details. But I do think you are being slightly possessive in insisting on a New Zealand only reference at the start of the article. Especially as it is clear that Crowe regards himself as both a New Zealander and an Australian. As you say he has spent an equal share of his formative years in both countries, while it was certainly in Australia that his career as a leading actor in feature films began to bring him worldwide recognition. I do not believe he has lived in New Zealand since then, and he has by now resided in Australia a lot longer than he has in New Zealand. Perhaps if you don't like the change I have made you can revert to something along the lines of New Zealand-Australian as an opening description. And I still cannot recall any New Zealand films in which he has had a role. Perhaps you could supply a title for one of these films?Ernest the Sheep (talk) 08:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I am not being possessive, and apologise if i am coming off that way. I am simply requesting a cited line for this. For a person with dual citizenship, it makes sense to go to their nationality instead. He is a New Zealand national. The article states that he made his success in Australia. Please do not revert again or you will be blocked in accordance with WP:3RR. Wikipedia is not a place for what you believe to be factually correct, but for what can be proven. Currently, the only cite states he is not an Australian citizen. As for the films, there are many TV's shows. Do a quick search yourself instead of stating what you 'recall'.
Do not edit an article in the middle of discussion, and do not breach WP:3RR. You will be blocked. I am reverting the changes (which are classed as vandalism, and therefore not subject to WP:3RR), but feel free to edit the article constructivly, backing up all your claims. Thank you, Matt (talk) 09:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I have looked everywhere and all i can find is that Crowe went for Australian citizenship back in 2006 and it was going to be shown on live TV see this ref [1] he has only ever been known as an Australian actor and has never done any New Zealand films, so what is wrong with having the intro like this " Russell Ira Crowe (born 7 April 1964 in Wellington, New Zealand) is an Academy Award, Golden Globe, Screen Actors Guild Award winning Australian actor " this is true and correct, points out that he is a New Zealand citizen but that he is an Australain actor. It is not that hard really...come on, what are your thoughts? Thuringowacityrep (talk) 00:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

That it is unsourced, and common sense doesn't apply to wikipedia. I may be coming off as trying to oppress material, but that is not my intention whatsoever. The lead needs a rewrite, but i do not myself feel comfortable doing it to avoid controversy. I'll leave it as NZ-Auz for now, but will attempt to rewrite it. Matt (talk) 04:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Russell crow is not an Australian citizen nor is he eligible because he is not a protected special category visa holder as defined in the Australian citizenship act see http://www.immi.gov.au/media/fact-sheets/17nz.htm. Under Australian citizenship. He applied see http://www.nzherald.co.nz/lifestyle/news/article.cfm?c_id=6&objectid=10365632 the NZ herald article clearly states that ‘the paperwork did not come thru in time’. Russell definitely did not swear allegiance to Australia on Australia Day 2006.

You have to swear allegiance in a public ceremony. That would definitely attract a news article for Russell - but there is no record of him ever attending a ceremony (that he was allowed to swear allegiance in that is).

Russell was definitely not in Australia on the 26th of February 2001 - see http://www.cinema.com/news/item/3218/russell-crowe-im-glad-i-flew-across-the-world-to-lose.phtml

He was also highly unlikely to have been resident for 1 out of the 2 previous years given his acting commitments in Hollywood etc. at the time - and that would make him no longer eligible for Australian citizenship under the Citizenship legislative instrument because he is a Kiwi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.6.203 (talk) 21:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I re-inserted the South Park bit of the "in popular culture" section. I appreciate the conributor's point who delete the section back in May 2008, since lots of unsourced - and potentially libel - material had sneaked in.

However, I feel that the reference to the South Park episode is reasonable and relevant.

Having said that, The_New_Terrance_and_Phillip_Movie_Trailer is one of my favorite episodes, so I might not be NPOV ;-)

HagenUK (talk) 12:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a reliable source, especially for potentionally libious material (that article itself has no sources either, which makes it doublely (thats not a word, i know) bad. However, as this doesn't seem too bad, might as well let it stay. Just note anyone can remove it, as it is unsourced. Thanks, Metagraph comment 22:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate that you are a fan of South Park, and especially that episode, but... What makes this portrayal more notable than the probable dozens of television parodies of Russell Crowe that have occurred over the past decade or so? Did he voice his character? Did it win an award of some kind that separated it from the chaff? Did he identify it as something he particularly liked? I've been working on articles slated for the Version 0.7 Wikipedia release and I was a bit concerned about what I renamed as the "Altercations" section, which is a bit iffy to me regarding WP:BLP, but since it is sourced, I left it. This section exists only for the South Park material, his temper has been discussed in the questionable section, and since it doesn't appear to add anything to the greater understanding of Russell Crowe, it's basically a trivia item sitting there all by itself. The existence of the section tacitly encourages others to add more. I really don't think this belongs. I would suggest, if anything, a brief sentence could be added to the intro of the above section, such as "Crowe has been involved in a number of altercations in recent years which have given him a reputation for having a bad temper, such that it was once parodied in a South Park episode." I'll wait for a response, but I do intend to remove it again. Wildhartlivie (talk) 13:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, you have a number of good points there! Cannot disagree with you. Please feel free to remove the section again, I will not restore it. Thank you for your detailed explanation. HagenUK (talk) 14:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. For what it's worth, I watch South Park every night. :) Wildhartlivie (talk) 16:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Gaelic Storm: The Night I Punched Russell Crowe

Had a look around Google, but could not find any verifiable claim. Best I could find is this: [2] . Therefore, this is at best a claim from the band ... and obviously disputed by Russell Crowe's management.

I removed the claim. If I am wrong, please add reliable citation.

HagenUK (talk) 06:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

New Zealander or Australian

Now that Russell has become an Australian citzen, this should be mentioned. However, he is first a New Zealander, having been born there and lived a lot of his life there. Also, he still speaks like a American with New Zealand overtones. If the New Zealand connection is removed, then this will mean he has renounced his New Zealand citizenship, which, incidentally would come as no surprise. This would also have to be cited. Wallie (talk) 09:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Anything along these lines needs to have a reliable source. In any case, he will always have been born in New Zealand, and that should be reflected. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
True. So I have reverted to New Zealand born. Wallie (talk) 15:25, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
It's not necessary to renounce prior citizenship in order to become Australian, so presumably he has dual NZ/AUS nationality. Hakluyt bean (talk) 23:20, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Please note Russel Russell is not an Australian citizen nor is he eligible due to the fact he was out of Australia on 27th feb 2001. Nor was he in Australia for 1 year in the 2 prior years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.49.216.129 (talk) 15:30, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Russell Crowe in public

In a South Park episode, Russell Crowe gets really upset everytime someone sees him in public screaming "Oh my god! It's Russell Crowe! Haven't you people ever seen a movie star before?!" Anyway, this episode, as well as a comic where someone comes up to Russell Crowe mistaking him for his friend 'Max' and asks Russell Crowe if he gets mistaken for his friend Max a lot. I'm wondering, out of curiosity, was there an incident Russell Crowe made a comment on people flipping out at seeing him in public or something? I'd like to know what the origins (if there were any) for where these things came from. 129.107.81.12 (talk) 07:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, you'd probably find this out searching the web as easily as anyone could answer that here. Wildhartlivie (talk) 12:02, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Career error

It says that he had a role in the TV series Police Rescue, however if you click on Police Rescue he doesn't appear on starring list.

It didn't say he had a starring role in the TV series, now does it? Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Firepower

This newly added section is given far too much weight in this article. The way in which it is added and written basically is blaming Crowe for everything that happened and outweighs his entire Hollywood career. Several points are cited but the only things pertaining to Crowe are appearing on the Tonight show about it. I have tagged it for undue weight and marked the cites that fail verification or are dead. Please clean this up. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:51, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Completely agree. Articles should focus on the most relevant points necessary to understand the issue, and should lean towards brevity. This seems to be leaning more towards "exhaustive" and it obscures the other aspects of the article that deal with Crowe's notability. It goes into details that don't specifically relate to Crowe, and in this article Crowe should always be the focus. I agree that WP:UNDUE emphasis is being placed on this topic and I think it could be cut back to a paragraph at most. I'm not convinced it needs it's own subheader either. Just because something is true, can be accurately sourced or is currently being reported in the media, does not mean it should become the focus of the article. This is covered in WP:RECENT. This subject is covered in more detail than Crowe's entire film career. That's very unbalanced and not appropriate. Rossrs (talk) 23:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Mother and Father investors, everyday folk, have lost $100 million of their savings in this gigantic con. Russell Crowe and Peter Holmes a Court were part of the scheme and took money from the company. That deserves to be known. Regardless of who these people are. If celebrities are above the law, or above scrutiny for their deeds just because they come from a rich family or because they hang out in Hollywood then the world has become a very sad place indeed. More sycophants is not what the world needs. It needs more vigilant people, willing to tell the truth. All of this information is documented and the story is big news in Australia and the UK. Being in Hollywood does not outweigh helping out a con-man. If you two think it does then you should give yourselves uppercuts. Everton Dasent (talk) 12:01, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Please contain your personal attacks. The commentary here is that your additions have given this event undue weight in the article compared to everything else. Has Russell Crowe been charged with anything? Did he sell interest in this company? You have determined him to be complicit in something which your additions do not support. All you can say here about Crowe is that he went on the Tonight Show and showed a jersey. That does not equal him being a con man. There is a BLP issue here which is currently being violated. Please cut this content to what Crowe did to warrant such an addition. And STOP removing the undue weight template. Wildhartlivie (talk) 13:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this content has undue weight in this article. You have basically tried and convicted Crowe for accepting a deal for the club without including any content regarding his culpability in misdealings. Either pony up the content that directly confirms Crowe was actively involved in bilking persons of $100 million of their savings in a con or pare it down considerably. And stop condemning those who speak up against such an addition, that's bad faith. LaVidaLoca (talk) 14:53, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Wildhartlivie and Rossrs. LaVidaLoca, we are not assuming bad faith. We have been editing here for a while and would not raise such a matter unless we really were concerned about it. Reviewing the content, there is a gross over-focus on this sub-topic for this actor, and since the content has implications that are being contested, I have removed the section per WP:GRAPEVINE, particularly since the related citations are not particularly Crowe-centric. Raise the matter at WP:BLP/N. Wildhartlivie and Rossrs, if people try to restore the section, you are permitted to remove it without repercussions since WP:BLP permits removal of such contentious material without violating 3RR. Erik (talk) 16:21, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
My comment about bad faith was in response to the posting by Everton Dasent that said "More sycophants is not what the world needs. It needs more vigilant people, willing to tell the truth. All of this information is documented and the story is big news in Australia and the UK. Being in Hollywood does not outweigh helping out a con-man. If you two think it does then you should give yourselves uppercuts." I consider those remarks offensive. LaVidaLoca (talk) 16:50, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
I apologize, I did not read what you wrote correctly. Just now having my morning coffee! :) Erik (talk) 17:08, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
No problem. I was having my morning Coca-Cola when I read it! LaVidaLoca (talk) 17:28, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I have further tightened up the section on Russell Crowe's involvement with Firepower. It only deals with Russell Crowe's involvement. It is fully referenced. There is no litigation over any of the referenced material. The company and its principal are subject to prosecution. This is not fantasy, it is fact. I note that Wildhartlivie earlier removed the whole section without any discussion. Then proceeded to dispute every sentence unless it was referenced. This was not in good faith. All of this material is researched, documented and has affected the lives of many people. Crowe is involved and the material I have added points to that involvement as it is known at the moment. Everton Dasent (talk) 22:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

As is proper when you are copy and pasting a complete section from another article into this one. WP:BLP requires all allegations to be substantiated at the time of addition. WP:BLP still holds on this article. No bad faith to it, except where you suggest Rossrs and I give ourselves uppercuts. Every single point must be sourced, especially when your addition condemns someone who is not involved in the legalities of the issue. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:23, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy enough with the edits as they stand. There will be more to come on this issue. The 'uppercuts' crack might have been a bit much, but I'm sure you'll appreciate that this Firepower saga is important to a lot of people who lost a lot of money to what will no doubt be found to be a criminal enterprise. Everton Dasent (talk) 11:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Crowe's kid outside his marriage

To be exposed soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.238.244 (talk) 23:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Revert by Lando09 of the cancellation of a episodic non encyclopedic picture from private life

Lando09 User:Lando09 reverted cancellation of pic: [[3]]

Dude, WTF are you going on about? Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Couldn't have said it better myself.This deal is getting worse all the time. (talk) 19:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Please stop posting a link to a private website of yours. That is not a permissable external link. I have no frigging clue what you are rambling about. Your command of English is vague at best. I don't know what your beef is with Lando09, but I am only reverting your posting of what appears to be an attack page, per policy. I don't have an on-screen persona and have no real clue what your main complaint is. You make no sense. What are you suggesting needs to go to WP:BLP/N? Your posts here? And for your edification, WTF is an abbreviation, not yelling. It means "what the fuck?" Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:32, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

(talk) 06:32, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Like I said, your English grasp is weak. The only completely senseless and fruitless discussion on this page stemmed from your incomprehensible posts that you deleted here. (I re-read this after 4 days and I still can understand it very well. It´s German English. igw.) It makes no sense and the only thing I did here was remove your link to your attack website. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:27, 20 February 2010 (UTC) (It´s incomprehensible for you and it makes no sense to you, right? igw)

Wildhartlivie, thank you very much for your hospitality and kindness. Old School, dreamlike. Ignazwrobel (talk) 17:46, 20 February 2010 (UTC) PS.: You´re a hero, an emperor, a king and the article is, no doubt, your private property. So I was an intruder on private ground.

The article is not my private property but I still have no idea what you were going on about, that part remains as clear as mud, and we simply cannot have imbedded links to private webpages. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:17, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Please, forget that page. It doesn´t exist any more. Mind, if I ask you a question? Do you ever sleep? You seem to be online night and day. 95.90.155.169 Ignazwrobel (talk) 20:22, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, as a matter of fact, I do sleep. Occasionally. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:09, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Phone Toss Section

For the average reader, finding out some specifics about Crowe's notorious NYC arrest for assault may be their single reason for checking out the article. It appears to get scant treatment at the end of the "Altercations" section and is less visible than "Other Sporting Interests". Aren't readers expecting to find more about it given the media frenzy it triggered in the U.S.? Eudemis (talk) 22:07, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

There are a lot of problems with your addition. For one thing, it isn't "tenacious editing". You added the name of a non-notable private person whose identity clarifies nothing, added ambiguity to sourced settlement figures, both of which are completely not acceptable. The only other thing you added was the supposition from a New York Daily News article - a source which is questionable regarding reliability - that the less than stellar box office success of Cinderella Man had anything to do with the incident under discussion. You've added no new information that enlightens anyone and simply added several references to the already noted less than reliable New York Daily News. There was nothing relevant included and it simply added questionable references. This is not acceptable, nor is it "tenacious" to remove this. I know nothing more from your "improvements" than I did before, and actually, I know less. This was not a helpful edit. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:01, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Wildhartlivie You should refrain from editing this article for a while. You have some serious ownership issues evidenced by umpteen edits/reversions. You are incorrect in stating that the sources are poor. They include quotes from Jeffrey Wells. He has the long time Hollywood reporter for the LA Times and syndicated nationally. [4] He was written for the New York Times, Washington Post and numerous other national magazines covering film and the entertainment industry. [5] He is the most frequently quoted Hollywood columnist by the LA Times.[6] The Newsweek citation that you deleted is from Newsweek, a national weekly magazine with a circulation of 1.5 million copies a week. [7] I'm not sure what you mean by private person since the citations are from online media. If you refer to Estrada, his name appears in every article surrounding the settlement and is not in any way an inappropriate addition. If you refer to the quoted journalists, journalists who write articles for main stream media need not themselves be notable. The fact that information appears in a reliable media source makes it includable. [8] (Notability is a requirement for inclusion of an article, not a person's name, in wikipedia. ) The New York Daily News which you state is questionable regarding reliability has won 10 Pulitzer Prizes. Daily News editorial board wins Pulitzer A Pulitzer Prize is an award given for, among other things, excellence in journalism. Your complaints as to the sources used are unfounded. Even more telling you didn't even address my comment under this heading and instead gave a rant in an attempt to reestablish your control of content.
I stopped at 3 but there are certainly more sources suggesting Cinderella Man was hurt by Crowe's arrest. I refer you to New York Times, the oldest most respected media source for all happenings in NYC:
"While gossip helped the summer confection "Mr. and Mrs. Smith," the sober, treacly "Cinderella Man," about a Depression-era boxer trying to provide for his family, hasn't benefited from Mr. Crowe's real-life phone-tossing. The film was already a box-office dud, and it dropped a calamitous 48 percent last weekend." New York Times - Staging Celebrity in Buzztown, U.S.A.
I tried to use NYC based media; the existing citation using $100,000 as the settlement figure I kept in for informational purposes was to an Australian source. Numbers that were given out by tabloids regarding the settlement amount ranged anywhere from 100,000 to 15,000,000 with much of it being reported in Britain, Australia and New Zealand. Russell Crowe to spend $15 million to settle case New Zealand source claims it was 15,000,000. The bulk of the mainstream NYC press continued to state that details of the settlement were not disclosed but that it was in the range of six figures. It is of course possible that a foreign reporter outscooped the Times and other NYC based mainstream media outlets, verified the 100,000 figure and NYC media is still in the dark. I feel where, as here, there is significant disagreement the article should reflect that or be misleading. If you had bothered to look at my changes, you would have seen that your reversion is factually inaccurate as a civil suit was never actually filed, it was threatened which was enough to start the negotiations prior to Crowe's criminal court hearing. [9]
Back to the topic I was asking about, I think article readers will have an interest in the phone tossing arrest and will find very little information here. I think a brief chronology would be helpful, the confession, the denial, the videotape and then the admission, all of which could fit in a paragraph. Average readers not so familiar with Crowe I think will be interested in it, more so than in finding out his favorite sports teams (a lot of that section is unsourced). Eudemis (talk) 05:01, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Your post basically falls under tl;dr. This article is subject to a lot of vandalism and inappropriate editing. Thus it is reverted. That's far from ownership and I'd suggest that your interest in adding negative content reflects an interest in discrediting someone, we don't normally include all the nitty gritty details of something like this and there is no valid reason to do now. I'd also advise you to comment on content, and not contributors. The non-notable private person is the person who took a settlement from Crowe. The person is non-notable and therefore should not be named, per the policy at WP:BLPNAME. Notability does not refer exclusively to an article, it covers people, too, as you would see if you bothered to consult WP:PEOPLE and WP:BLPNAME. We do not routinely name someone who is otherwise not notable in articles. That applies here. The New York Daily News is not considered a reliable source and trying to establish it as reliable because someone inserted content from other reporters is less than positive regarding the source. There is no valid reason, except your own prurient interest, to expand this incident and adding undue weight to the event. Besides, all you added was the notation that some believe the event tanked the film. A film that brings $108 million at the box office did not tank, nor would a film bring awards and nominations if it is a failure. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:35, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Again you are long on narrative and short on sources. The New York Times said Cinderella Man was a dud, I didn't. You need reliable sources to support your proclamations. Your position on Estrada is inaccurate. "When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed" constitutes a private person. [10] Estrada's name appeared in every article concerning the settlement and was widely disseminated and continues to be mentioned in articles from countless online media sources. What source do you have that the New York Daily News is unreliable? What source indicates to you that Newsweek is unreliable? Where are your sources for these assertions? I'm not suggesting adding negative content, I'm suggesting an obvious need for more details to a significant event. Everything I add is properly sourced and supported. This is not the case with parts of the article. Again you have a clear ownership problem in feeling you should control content. The article should be encyclopedic and properly sourced, not a fan page. Eudemis (talk) 12:21, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Me long on narrative? I didn't make a nearly 5000 kb post that was too long too read. My position on the conceirge is factually based in Wikipedia policy. He is not a notable public figure and he is only known based on one event. I have taken this to WP:BLP/N. The New York Daily News is essentially a tabloid and is not an encouraged source. And the article should not be used to bash the subject either, which is what it appears you want to do. Are you acquainted with Nestor Estrada? Is that what is going on here? Why do you think it is notable to name this person in this article? What grounds do you have to support the inclusion of this non-notable person? Please stop making personal attacks against me or I will take you to WP:AN/I. That is simply a fact. And please stop trying to chase me away from this article by suggesting that I should take a break from it because I routinely revert vandalism on this page, posting my edit count to the article and suggesting ownership. There are huge issues with what you are trying to post here and violating WP:3RR and trying to chase away an editor who dissents from your contentions is simply bad faith actions that are clearly not acceptable conduct from you. Next time you violate WP:3RR, I'm taking you to the WP:3RR noticeboard and reporting your violations. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:11, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Again you need to take a break from editing this article. You exhibit classic ownership behavior. You objected to all 3 references for the same statement. Triple referenced material doesn't hold any sway with you. You objected to the referenced Newsweek citation, deleted it and objected to the quote from the New York Times above which could be added as a fourth. You don't seem to understand the wikipedia policies. You don't delete properly referenced edits without grounds and especially not back to a version that it false (the lawsuit was never actually filed). You should be more concerned about the numerous dead links and lack of citations throughout the article than controlling content that's properly supported by citations. Eudemis (talk) 00:40, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Please read Wikipedia:Civility Eudemis, and discuss the article, not the person. XLerate (talk) 01:15, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Just because something can be found in reliable sources doesn't mean it should be included in a Wikipedia article. —Mike Allen 01:47, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
The next time you launch a personal attack at me, Eudemis, I'm going to WP:AN/I. I've already reported to the 3RR noticeboard for violating 3RR in spirit if not technically in fact. I am objecting to the insert of the content, which is clearly inappropriate from a WP:BLP standpoint and from the lack of valid statements besides opinion that the film tanked. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Eudemis...I removed the party as a non-notable (due to the red name) and agree with others that until the name turns blue and meets WP criteria as a notable person, the page should stand as is. Perhaps if want to create the article, raising the person to some standard that makes him notable where there is no dispute with other editors, that may be your best course of action. Hope this helps!Victor9876 (talk) 03:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
On another point about Cinderella Man - the movie did not surpass the budget at the box office in the US, however, including the foreign receipts, it did surpass the budget and became profitable. How successful is subjective...my source is Box Office Mojo, for what it's worth.Victor9876 (talk) 03:43, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
You have suggested others get involved to which I agree. Some more senior editors will have a much clearer view of what's permissible in terms of using names and when removal of reliable sourced information is appropriate. Eudemis (talk) 04:01, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

You seem to misinterpret the suggestion that others comment. A WP:RfC does not mean to cherry pick editors whom you believe will speak in your favor and personally canvass them to come to this page, based on your personal viewpoints of the issue and the editor who disputes you. As I posted to your talk page, it is entirely improper to try and raise support by canvassing in this manner [11] [12] [13] [14]. And you are entirely all wet, I am not a New Zealand based editor, I live in the United States, and you are drawing ad hominem attacks on me based what you assume is my nationality. Your continually stating I have ownership issues is a personal attack that simply must stop. I have based my objections to your edits in WP policy, including violations of WP:BLP, so you're all wet on that as well. If you do not stop your personal attacks against me, I will gladly take you to WP:AN/I for your inappropriate conduct. You've been called on incivility on the article talk page and your inappropriate canvassing speaks for itself. You are now walking a precarious path here. Stop. This is the last warning I'll give before I post to AN/I about your inappropriate conduct. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:07, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

You aren't alone. XLerate is from New Zealand. Asking other editors none of whom know me to look at the article is customary. If you want to check their and my archives, I have no prior communication with three of them and none with the other apart from reading his article edits and article talk comments on the same subject. Eudemis (talk) 04:23, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm not alone in what??? Please stop being a dick. I am not from New Zealand, and it is completely unacceptable to characterize me based on that erroneous assumption. Whether you have had contact with these editors or not, your posts to their talk pages encompass inappropriate canvassing nevertheless, by the manner in which you approached them and requested them to look here. STOP making ad hominem comments about me or be prepared to respond at AN/I. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:32, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Wildhartlivie (and the other editor who reverted Eudemis), there's no reason to include the name of a non-notable person named in a lawsuit. Just because it was named in sources doesn't mean it adds anything to the article. I also agree on the canvassing allegations above, Eudemis, if you require a second opinion, please ask on a noticeboard in a neutral manner. Dayewalker (talk) 04:40, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) What it looked like you were doing was "campaigning", which WP:CANVASS states, "is an attempt to sway the person reading the message, conveyed through the use of tone, wording, or intent." Anyway, I see a problem with this whole addition, "Prior to the plea bargain, Crowe settled a threatened lawsuit by the concierge, Nestor Estrada. Terms of the settlement were not disclosed but amounts in the 6 figure range have been suggested." Reading the news article, both parties declined to comment suggesting it's none of anyone's business what the "payout" was and thus can not be successfully verified to be added on a BLP (or really any Wikipedia article). In other words it's speculation. Wikipedia shouldn't "suggest" anything. About the name, it's a blatant violation of WP:BLPNAME. —Mike Allen 04:45, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

My 2c on the content - I feel the concierge's name is against BLPNAME, "amounts in the 6 figure range have been suggested" is vague, and performance of Cinderella Man is a faulty assertion based off speculation. I don't think any of it improves the article. The incident shouldn't receive WP:UNDUE weight, if a reader is after tabloid information there are other places they can look. XLerate (talk) 12:57, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Coming here from BLP/N I have to agree the name doesn't seem particularly important to the article and therefore should be excluded for BLP reasons. I should state I do live in NZ, although I don't get why that's relevant. To state the obvious, not all Kiwis love Russell Crowe in fact many don't like him particularly given the controversies he has caused (this one being an example, of course supporting the Rabbitohs probably didn't help either, although better then say the Broncos) for example a common joke is that Russell Crowe has successful proven he's an Australian or that Australians are welcome to him (or perhaps that's the issue here? In which case I should point that the fact people don't like someone doesn't mean they can't contribute usefully to writing an article about the person, most Americans must have feelings toward Barack Obama or George W. Bush, yet the most common editors for both must surely be Americans) Nil Einne (talk) 13:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Protected

After being notified about this I have protected the page until it gets sorted. something lame from CBW 05:16, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Um, I wouldn't characterize that as a notification. I'd characterize that as inappropriate canvassing, as I noted in a response to his post. It, in all bad faith, says "Your Grace, the minions are squabbling again. Sadly, a small group of what appears to be New Zealand based article owners have planted their national flag here: Russell Crowe [15]. Well meaning, foreign crusaders for truth are quickly identified and their edits reverted into oblivion. I pray that you will, as time allows, visit said article and liberate her from the death grip of the Kiwis. As always, I remain your most humble servant, Eudemis (talk) 10:57 pm, Yesterday (UTC−4)". And the editor was reported for 3RR violations. But it's fine as fully protected. He can't keep reverting. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:43, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Sarcasm is really hard to get across in the written word. something lame from CBW 05:51, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Indeed. :) Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Correct me if I'm wrong but your supporters appeared very suddenly and this is on Dayewalker's page:
"Thanks, [1] Once again, you charge in to my rescue. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:53, 9 April 2010 (UTC)" See here [16] This indicates that you two are acquainted. Neither of you felt the need to disclose this in the discussion. I, on the other hand, don't have communication with or know other editors. Getting more senior editors involved I have always favored. Eudemis (talk) 06:05, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

And what of it? Unless you can show that she posted here inappropriately, you are blowing a dead horn. You are incorrect in any assumption that "supporters appeared very suddenly". Many editors come here for various reasons and some have clearly come here from the 3RR report and others because of your inappropriate canvassing, which clearly was communication with other editors, contrary to your statement. It is the clear bottom line reason that the article is now protected. That I have edited with someone in the past is not an inappropriate thing, nor is it necessary to "disclose" that we have edited articles in common or that I thanked her for speaking against your violation of WP:CANVASS. There is no evidence to be posted here that I inappropriately canvassed her response or that she did so in an inappropriate manner. Please, please stop making ad hominem attacks on me or the other editors who post here, I have given you far more than sufficient warning to desist in bad faith commentary and it will stop now, or it will go to AN/I. I've given you sufficient chances considering you are a fairly new editor here, but enough is simply enough. No more will be tolerated. As I have told you repeatedly, your attacks are inappropriate and I'm about at the end of my tolerance for your violations of behavior guidelines and your incivil aspersions. That she posted against your position means nothing sinister and there absolutely no policy or guideline that has been broken by her posting here, nor disagreeing with you. That isn't what violating canvassing restrictions are about, although cross posting the same or nearly the same biased post to the other editors noted above as you did is inappropriate. It seems you are deficit in your knowledge of what is proper conduct. You'll find that many of the same editors post on actor pages and of itself, that means nothing. Stop trying to make it into something. And absolutely stop attacking me personally. That is never acceptable conduct. Oh, and by the way, with well over 50000 edits, I am a more senior editor and it has not stopped you from disparaging and attacking me at every turn. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:24, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Dayewalker and you were both critical of me, "I also agree on the canvassing allegations above, Eudemis, if you require a second opinion, please ask on a noticeboard in a neutral manner." from Dayewalker above. I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of that statement from someone here because she knows you and fails disclose the connection. No one neutral is going to support what you have done here. The same is true of your supporter Victor9876. Victor9876 has an incredible 160+ posts to your talk page. See here. [17] Making it appear that there is this overwhelming support for your positions from unbiased observers or that they "have clearly come here from the 3RR report" is just a ruse. Ditto your supporter, XLerate. XLerate is the creator of the article on Eve van Grafhorst[18], a child banded from school for being hiv positive and you are a principal editor for Ryan White, a child banded from school for being hiv positive[19]. The chances XLerate just showed up here on Russell Crowe randomly are nil. You don't see the hypocrisy in your telling me to use a neutral forum as your friends weigh in in your favor and lecture me as if neutral parties. I don't interact with or know other editors on wikipedia. I sought and welcome any outside review by an experienced editor. Eudemis (talk) 14:09, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
You're wrong, Eudemis. Look here and here. This page is on my watchlist, it isn't a matter of showing up, but monitoring all changes to the article for some time. Once again false accusations from you. A similarity between Ryan White and Eve van Grafhorst is coincidence, I haven't talked to Wildhartlivie before today[20]. We see you have no interest in improving the article, just being disruptive. XLerate (talk) 15:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
I have filed a complaint at WP:AN/I regarding the personal attacks and disparagements posted on this page against multiple editors on this page by Eudemis. The complaint can be found here. Wildhartlivie (talk) 15:51, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
You don't find that an odd coincidence? There are 300,000 editors on wikipedia but the ones here have very narrow shared interests that are not Russell Crowe. Nil Einne above who just stopped by after seeing the BLP/N, was in a science discussion involving XLerate here [21] and contributes to a Judy Garland talk page as does Wildhartlivie [22] If comments were coming from contributors to Vermeer and whales and I claimed there was no connection, I would expect you to be incredulous. Eudemis (talk) 16:19, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd suggest that you stop making ad hominem attacks upon the other editors on this page and go respond to the AN/I complaint. Wildhartlivie (talk) 16:22, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the above editors about the edits being removed that is causing all this fuss. Since you want to know, which I don't have to do, I do know Wildhartlivie, Daywalker, and Victor, having edited at the same pages as they have. i think you need to read civil and no personal attacks again. You are supposed to talk about the edits not the editors and if you do this I think you will have a lot less trouble. Just because editors edit the same articles doesn't mean anything bad is going on. I actually came here because I saw the 3r notice too. Please, everyone, lets calm down the rhetoric and talk about the article. Thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk 16:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
The last post made by Eudemis is total lunacy. I edited Talk:Judy Garland the last time on February 29, 2008 and Nil Einne made one post on May 19, 2009. Woooooooo, yeah, lots of complicity there. Please stop making personal attacks on other editors here and go respond to the complaint that was filed. I would venture to say you're tightening the noose around your editing neck by continuing. This is insane. Wildhartlivie (talk) 16:43, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
For the record, I have agreed with WHL on some issues in the past, and disagreed on others, but none of that is relevant. There's policy here, and that's what everyone is basing their opinions on. Simply having edited the same articles as another editor doesn't preclude you from commenting on another matter. Dayewalker (talk) 16:58, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Well it is only relevant in that the group of you do in fact know each other and were complaining that I was trying to get non neutral parties involved without disclosing your own biases. Eudemis (talk) 17:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
By calling editors "biased" because they've edited the same articles as other editors, you're trying to poison the well. That's not going to help you very much. I would suggest, as above, that you make your points on this issue in regard to policy, and not by attacking other editors. You also need to comment on the ANI discussion. If you feel something's going on here that violates policy, or you're not getting a fair shake, please open a thread on the relevant notice board where something can be done about it. Dayewalker (talk) 17:23, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
:::"Eudemis", I among others posting here have edited in unison on a variety of articles, with dis-agreements and agreements. If you look at my suggestions to you, I fail to see where any investigative association with Wildhartlivie or others has any weight for your comments. I am in Asheville, North Carolina and looked at your profile and noticed you are a tax attorney in North Carolina. May I quote some observations about your profession from Shakespeare, Swift and more recent writers? Should I scold you for having learned the "art of obfuscation" which you are invoking in this discussion? Or, should I just suggest that you get on the next bus that is going over the cliff and to the bottom of the ocean? Now wake up and smell the coffee! You are entirely out of line with your attacks - and yet perfectly in line with your profession! Sue me!!!Victor9876 (talk) 17:31, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Actually the complaint here was that you were inappropriately canvassing support for your POV on this article. I defy you to show us a policy or guideline that mandates that editors be required to identify that they are aware of, know, or edit with other editors in order to reply here. There is no such policy or guideline. However, WP:CANVASS exists to warn editors from independently, openly and wilfully soliciting other editors to respond. That is what you were doing. That editors willingly and independently decide to respond is totally something else altogether and there is no policy or guideline to prevent that. In fact, you'll find that editors tend to respond to the same things on the same articles. There is no rule against it. Trying to discredit multiple editors here for responding is both bad form and bad faith and you've not been short of that here whatsoever. There is another rule here which you've openly and wilfully disregarded on this page, which is no personal attacks. There is little on this page that does not constitute a personal attack on editors who responded here. In fact, you set out to openly and willingly have done so and you have thus been reported to AN/I for your uncivil and inappropriate behavior on this page. Your response neither justifies nor excuses the inappropriate comments you have made all over this page and thus you must justify your conduct regarding it at AN/I. Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
The suggestion that they had just wandered in after seeing 3RR report isn't the case. If editors know each other and have edited together, an editor should probably disclose that before weighing in especially when his claim is that another editor is seeking non neutral opinions. Eudemis (talk) 18:24, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
You should recuse yourself from the article counselor. And Golly Geeeeeee! Was that Occam's Razor you were trying to cut your own throat with?Victor9876 (talk) 18:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

(OD) We're getting bogged down in all sorts of things that are not related to this article. Eudemis, if you would like to make a complaint somewhere, take it to the appropriate noticeboard (as WHL has done at ANI).

As for the rest, consensus seems to be clear here that the name of the person in the lawsuit doesn't belong in the article. Eudemis, do you have anything policy-related to add to that discussion? Dayewalker (talk) 18:32, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I am curious who is left that is outside this group who have edited together. I mean isn't that what canvasing Votestacking is - bringing in familiar people for a headcount. I haven't edited with any other editor here (outside of this article). Is there anyone else here who is in that position? Regarding the Altercations sections, even without the naming, the current version is inaccurate. The lawsuit was never filed. The settlement was for a potential one. That should be non controversial. I'm sure no one wants an error to remain. Eudemis (talk) 19:03, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Votestacking is when someone asks for others to support them. Can you show any edit where WHL asked these editors for help I only see where she thanked them afterwords. The group of editors here are not so unique as to be anything but a random group who share similar interests and edit a lot of common pages.205.143.204.198 (talk) 22:03, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
You should sign in if you want to post. There is nothing random about this group.Eudemis (talk) 23:02, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
And you should be aware that there is absolutely NO requirement that an IP cannot edit Wikipedia or respond to talk page threads. Please dial back your aspersions against an IP account who responded here. Is there no one whom you will not attack? This is not a court of law, there is no mandate that someone give their name, address, and phone number in order to respond here. Your comments are specious and inappropriate. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:59, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
I feel your pain Eudemis...being a tax attorney puts one in a position where no one likes them and they are forced into a surreal world where they actually believe they are being conspired against, that's called reality. Sometimes paranoia is justified, you qualify. It's your determination to force others to believe you is where your problem is, that's called delusional. There's a doctor here in Asheville who can................. Victor9876 (talk) 19:41, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Are we ready to ask for the protection to be lifted?

As per the discussion above and the policy at WP:BLPNAME, we seem to have clear consensus that the name of the concierge should be omitted. It seems that only one editor disagrees and as such, the article can be unprotected. I admit, the above sections are hard to follow and littered with discussions that do not address the original question, so I may have missed something in the cacophony. Before asking for the protection to be lifted, are there any other issues which still need to be addressed? Dayewalker (talk) 23:19, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

While I have enjoyed meeting all of Wildhartlivie's friends, I would like an experienced independent editor to review the history here. I think that was the original purpose. Eudemis (talk) 23:31, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
And that's been done here, and at other noticeboards. It does not appear anyone else on this page agrees with you. Right now, you are the lone holdout, which means consensus is against you on this issue. I've implored you to file a case at a noticeboard, or respond to the ANI thread, you've done neither. I'm not sure what else can be done to help you here, just pretending you don't see consensus is against you isn't going to help. As I asked above, are there any other issues other than the name to be addressed? Dayewalker (talk) 23:37, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Your concept of consensus differs from mine. More like Vote Stacking 101. Eudemis (talk) 00:37, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Can you show any diffs of WHL asking any editor to join this discussion? —Mike Allen 00:47, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Eudemis is just filibustering, no use in trying to persuade him/her to accept consensus, it's not in his/her vocabulary. There's no need to try and placate Eudemis either. This discussion is overwhelming in its support to omit the parties name as a non-notable. Bring the gavel down and remove the protection. Eudemis can handle it - Eudemis is an attorney. We have to follow his raising of taxes here in North Carolina, he should have the courtesy to follow WP's rules of consensus. Even if he got one "independent" editor to agree, the consensus would still stand. Victor9876 (talk) 01:07, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

(OD) As the lone opposing party is refusing to actually make a case here, I've asked the protecting admin to lift it. [23] Dayewalker (talk) 02:03, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I am quite tired and fed up with Eudemis's continued pattern of attacking the other editors who have responded here. I'm quite sure, if he is an attorney, he is clearly aware of the rules regarding supporting his claims. That any two editors here may have edited the same articles, or are aware of the other, is a specious, invalid and spitefilled accusation of unsupported votestacking. He has offered nothing in the way of proof for his accusations and instead continues to sputter on, totally and completely oblivious of the need to support his statements. His unprovoked attacks on EACH AND EVERY editor who has responded here to his own RfC is completely untenable and spite filled and his feeble attempts to prove that two editors that posted to noticeboards, talk pages and other pages in a vastly wide separation of time, his lack of any direct proof for his accusations, his refusal to respond to the AN/I complaint about his behavior and his willingness to launch new attacks against editors who do post here is something that needs to stop now. He has no proof of votestacking, complicity regarding the editors who have responded here to his own RfC, and his total oblivion to the conclusions here is not just specious, it is assaultive and absolutely MUST STOP. I see no solid proof the man is aware enough of the rules of evidence or supporting evidence for the false accusations he is making here to back up that he knows of what he speaks. Guess what Eudemis? There is no requirement that editors who respond should be complete strangers and the fact that you approached complete strangers to canvass a response to this thread is disengenous, spiteful and basically, down right ignorant regarding how things work here. You've been here well over a year, you should be aware of the rules and guidelines here and the most compelling of those is not to personally attack others in trying to make your case. You have not supported anything you've said here and simply continue to attack anyone who responds here. You absolutely need to stop. You've worn out any good faith here with your postings and attacks and it MUST STOP. No attorney would go on the offensive as you have to try and argue against the editor while presenting NO FACTS. STOP. For the love of God, STOP. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:53, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi MikeAllen I think I missed you. Six posts to your talk page by Wildhartlivie [24]; multiple posts by you to Wildhartlivie’s wapedia page [25]; being thanked for you and Wildhartlivie working together [26]. Quite a lot of contact outside wikipedia for you two. I'm guessing you didn't just wander in here randomly. Eudemis (talk) 03:22, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
You must have me confused with someone else. I don't know what a "Wapedia" is and that link to StartReknwyoages.com is dead... and I also have no idea what that site is. Now again, are you going to answer my question or keep falsely accusing me doing something I have not done? Which is what you've been doing to everyone here since the discussion started. —Mike Allen 03:58, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Eudemis, please try to contain your incessant need to attack every editor on this page. You are drawing specious and arbitrary conclusions that are completely and totally incivil and attacking and have broken nearly every ettiquette rule on this site. Try to actually address the issues and STOP attacking the editors who respond here. You are garnering no support with your specious attacks. Grow up. Act like a lawyer instead of Torquemada, the Inquisitor. Your conduct is shameful and you are embarrassing yourself. And dude, "Wapedia" isn't something where I post. That is actually a mobile mirror site for Wikipedia, it IS Wikipedia. Stop attacking me and the other editors here and concentrate on the issue for which you posted a RfC. You are getting nowhere with attacking each and every editor who comes to this page. I remind you that YOU were the one who engaged in the inappropriate canvassing. Stating that two editors have edited something in common is absolutely NO PROOF WHATSOEVER that anything inappropriate, like your own little foray into canvassing, has occurred. People are always attracted to a car wreck, and that is precisely what your posting to this page resembles. The slow destruction of an editor who has no clue about what he's posting. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:16, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
I was able to look at the Star Trek forum and it was just an editor thanking other editors for keeping a watch on a recently deceased actor's article for vandalism. I'm glad you took the time out of your busy schedule to google us and put us at a crime that hasn't been committed. I hope you're done now. —Mike Allen 07:09, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Unprotected

As per the request on my talk page the article is now unprotected. By the way Wapedia is just Wikipedia, but it works on a cell phone. There is (should be) no difference between the two. Everybody needs to cut out the attacks. While some may not have made any I see that there are attacks from both sides. something lame from CBW 06:42, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, --CrohnieGalTalk 10:31, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Concierge assault case

I have been asked by Eudemis to look into the dispute regarding the editing of the details regarding the concierge assault case/phone toss incident. I have read the previous discussions and archived them. I have looked at Eudemis's first edits, and noted that Eudemis added some material regarding the incident which was then reverted by Wildhartlivie with the edit summary "non-notable person, sketchy sources". The source used was the Daily News (New York) - a Pulitzer Prize winning newspaper with the fifth highest circulation in the United States. The article was reverted to a statement solely sourced by Earth Times whose reliability is questionable as it invites contributions from "everyday men and women who are active agents of change and whose points of view are seldom heard in the mainstream media." - essentially it appears to be a form of wiki newsblog. Nestor Estrada is not notable enough to have a standalone article under our guidelines; though consideration should be given to how useful it is to use the person's name in the reporting of the incident. WP:BLPNAME gives advice on this, and advises that sources other than newspapers should be consulted. I took at look and found this, this this this, etc. As an independent editor looking at Eudemis's edit I find it useful and within policy. I have restored it, and have removed the questionable Earth Times sources at the same time. Any questions regarding this, please get in touch with me. SilkTork *YES! 13:10, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I have a couple issues here. Steps in dispute mediation were already attempted. Eudemis filed a WP:RfC on this and then spent all of his time attacking and casting aspersions against each and every editor who replied here, spent a considerable amount of time claiming that I was guilty of inappropriately canvassing support, which was something he could not support, and which he could not provide proof, and I note called the responses of all the other editors who replied here as meat puppets. That is a specious charge with no validation and is yet another of his bad faith attacks against editors here since things were not going his way. That included trying to link me to someone who commented on the Talk:Judy Garland page a full 15 months after I last posted there. He then filed an unwarranted and specious sock puppet case against me because late one night, the WP server automatically logged me when the 30 days auto-login expired, effectively trying to get me blocked to get rid of my opinion against him. That case was closed almost as soon as it was opened. The clear consensus on the RfC which Eudemis himself filed was that this individual's name was not notable enough to include in this article. I'm sorry, but Eudemis cannot forum shop trying to get things to turn out the way he wants them when consensus was squarely not on his side. It is completely bad faith to go to the talk page of another editor and completely misrepresent the issue and try to garner support. He was also guilty of inappropriately canvassing support for his POV. This was also posted at WP:BLP/N and it appears to me that the general consensus there was not supportive of including this non-notable person's name. And excuse me, but since when do we include a repeat piece in a gossip column as valid sourcing that largely relies on an internet post from Hollywood-elsewhere.com? Cinderella Man was not a box office flop. The total worldwide box office was in excess of $108M. How does that equal "poor box office performance"? Crowe has had films that were dismal box office failures, but Cinderella Man was not one of them. So multiple people come here to comment and to WP:BLP/N to comment, but Eudemis can continue to shop around until he finds someone that agrees with him and all the objections are out the window. I don't think so. It was a slick trick he tried to pull, but the WP:RfC and WP:BLP/N did not agree and content supported by a gossip column is hardly supported by "Pulitzer Prize winning newspaper" reporting, but a gossip column. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:22, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
So a RfC, BLP/N and talk page full of disagreements isn't enough for this guy so he continues his quest for someone to finally agree with him. When will it end. —Mike Allen 00:59, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Content disputes sometimes involve behaviour disputes - such is the nature of Wikipedia editing. What I see are people who are editing with the best interests of the article at heart, and having a slight disagreement over content. The edit that started this dispute I have looked at and find much in it that is useful. Can that edit be improved? Certainly. Such is the collaborative nature of Wikipedia. People look at the strengths and weaknesses of an edit, and seek to build on the strengths, and replace the weaknesses.
I assume the RfC mentioned is the talkpage discussion I archived. Certainly I agree that the majority of those who commented felt that Nestor Estrada's name was not needed. However, having looked at our guidance on such matters - WP:BLPNAME - and at the mention of Nestor Estrada in a number of sources which go beyond the news media into books by recognised experts, such as Courting the media: public relations for the accused and the accuser by Margaret A Mackenzie, and Introduction to Criminal Justice by Larry J Siegel, as well as mentions in other books, I felt it was appropriate to use the name. When recognised experts such as Larry J Siegel feel it is appropriate and helpful to mention Nestor Estrada by name, then perhaps we should follow their example. Wikipedia aims to be a summary of knowledge and information published by reliable sources, and to be as complete and accurate and informative as possible. We suppress information when that information is inappropriate and/or harmful, and in this case I am not certain that suppression is appropriate. We can sometimes tend to lean toward suppression because it is easier and safer, and it feels odious to argue for the inclusion of someone's name on principle, but I do think we need to guard against the slippery slope of over-caution. Where there is a dispute over the inclusion of someone's name I tend to ask the advise of those who are knowledgeable in this area. SlimVirgin is the main author of our BLP policy, and I respect her opinion. Would you like me to ask for her view?
I agree that the Cinderella Man statement needs more clarification, and if there are no other sources supporting or clarifying that point, then perhaps it should be removed. SilkTork *YES! 05:21, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Two things. I'll go with Cinderella Man first. It wasn't a huge hit, but it wasn't a box ofice failure either. It falls squarely in the middle of the list of Crowe's films, and it is #6 of his films in terms of U.S.-only box office, after Gladiator, A Beautiful Mind, American Gangster, Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World and L.A. Confidential. That doesn't even consider the [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0352248/awards host of awards and nominations the film received, which can be a strong indicator of the quality of a film. As for the New York Daily News piece, I just want to reiterate that this was not part of a prize winning news story, it appeared on the gossip page and the opinion that the film flopped because of Crowe was only part of the story, which covered opinions on that. Including it here does not give full representation to the variety of opinions covered in that story, so it misrepresents it. This article ignores the rest of the story, which included a comment of "Daily Variety editor Peter Bart doesn't believe Crowe's arrest put handcuffs on the movie's box-office prospects. This is a downbeat movie about the Depression with a lot of boxing," he tells us. "It was always a long shot as a June release. This is the time of year for [family entertainment] like 'Star Wars' and 'Madagascar.' Hollywood Reporter columnist Anne Thompson agrees a fall release might have been prudent, since "Russell Crowe may not be the kind of movie star who guarantees a major opening." so the content given here doesn't actually represent what the story actually says, even if it is a gossip page.
As for naming the hotel employee, the story doesn't lose anything by not giving the employee's name, nor does he get more money. He threatened to sue and collected. We don't know more about it by knowing his name, it doesn't increase our understanding of the event. At the risk of sounding unkind, the guy got his 15 minutes of fame from this. He hasn't become synonymous with "another person beaten by Russell Crowe" and I honestly think the opinion has been rendered here. The book Introduction to Criminal Justice mentions his name once, the rest of the story is about Crowe, not the employee. The bit in Courting the media: public relations for the accused and the accuser appears to be more about the strategy of the lawyer representing Estrada than about Estrada himself and again, the content in both books does not increase understanding by knowing his name. He's simply not notable. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:43, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
I would like to sort this dispute quickly as I don't have much spare time at the moment, and it seems to me that there is much in the edit that started this dispute that is acceptable. I was hoping that restoring that edit would be sufficient. However, I am content to talk through the matter step by step.
My intention isn't to impede editing on the article, so if you feel after doing some research on the matter that there isn't enough information from reliable sources to confirm if the incident did impact on the film's sales, then - as I have said - the sentence can be removed.
We have different views on the Nestor Estrada issue so it would be appropriate to bring in an expert opinion. I will ask SlimVirgin. SilkTork *YES! 19:11, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
I was asked to comment here; apologies for the delay. Based on the BBC report, I can't see that including or excluding the receptionist's name makes any difference one way or the other in terms of the BLP policy. He made himself known so there's no harm in adding his name. Regarding the Cinderella Man edit, it would be good to see a source other than the New York Daily News [27] make the connection between the incident and what they're saying was a blacklash against Crowe; not that there's anything wrong with the newspaper, but as it's a contentious point, I'd prefer to see multiple sources make it, and not only sources mirroring the Daily News, but making the point independently. SlimVirgin talk contribs 07:41, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your input SV. I have looked further into the box office allegations, and they seem to mostly come from one source, and are one among a number of speculations into the reasons why the film did not do as well as expected. I have removed the statement. I have put Nestor Estrada's name into the article as that is what reliable sources have done, and it seems appropriate to give the person an identity rather than leave him as a nameless receptionist. SilkTork *YES! 10:56, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Filmography

Gladiator needs to be added to Crowe's Filmography. I believe it's from 2001? Juranas (talk) 15:51, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

False death rumor

In an article by "Sunny Pepper" on citizen journalism website Examiner.com (www.examiner.com/x-35831-Celebrity-Headlines-Examiner~y2010m6d10-Russell-Crowe-died-hoax-attributed-to-false-Wikipedia-repor), it was claimed that a false rumor about Crowe's death spreading on the Internet had its origin in this Wikipedia article:

The "Russell Crowe died" rumors have been linked and attributed to a false Wikipedia report.
The report was updated with Russell Crowe's death and shortly repaired, but fans and media outlets were too quick to pick up on the falsely updated news.

The same claim was made on the Associated Content web page www.associatedcontent.com/article/5475016/russell_crowe_died_in_an_accident_in.html and here. The Examiner.com article quotes this article on RadarOnline which in turn quotes "a rep for Wikipedia" (an OTRS agent) whose boilerplate response about vandalism apparently became mangled to an admission of guilt for the whole affair.

Examiner.com and Associated Content are not exactly reputable media (both domains are currently on Wikipedia's spam blacklist). But now the LA Times is repeating the attribution to Wikipedia:

According to a false Wikipedia update, the actor fell more than 50 feet while filming on Hahnenkamm mountain in Austria. Despite the fact that the false entry was immediately taken down, the rumor continued to run rampant on the Internet.

But it does not appear to be true that the rumor orginated on Wikipedia:

  • At 13:19 UTC, 10 June 2010, the false death claim was first inserted into this article, according to the version history. (The content of some later edits which presumably contained more details about the alleged death, was removed, but their dates are still showing up in the version history.)
  • At 9:08 PM Jun 9th, this tweet was published ("Tradgedy: Wow, this is tragic http://russell.crowe.mediafetcher.com/news/top_stories/actor_austria.php http://bit.ly/9zp5ET"). I assume the Twitter time stamp is in PDT, so that would be 4:08 am UTC, 10 June 2010. See also Google Trends for June 10. In any case the rumor existed on Twitter many hours before the Wikipedia edit was made, and the cited web page is probably even older. It also has much more detail about the supposed death than the Wikipedia edit (which just inserted a death date). As explained here, it originated from a fake news creation web site:
At the bottom of the fake story about Crowe is a note that the story was "dynamically generated using a generic 'template' and is not factual. Any reference to specific individuals has been 100% fabricated by web site visitors who have created fake stories by entering a name into a blank 'non-specific' template for the purpose of entertainment. For sub-domain info and additional use restrictions: FakeAWish.com."'

This web page agrees with that explanation and confirms that the hoax did not originate on Wikipedia:

Celebrity Fake News Generator, build-your-own-bogus-calamity site, seems to be the rumor mongrel behind the hoax death reports. [...] Crowe's death news fired up Twitter late Wednesday through this morning, and briefly infected the actor's Wikipedia page.

This article names yet another source:

New York City radio station Z100 reported Thursday morning that the Robin Hood star had passed away, and the news quickly became a trending topic on Google.

Regard, HaeB (talk) 00:42, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I think this is why the Examiner and Associated Content is blacklisted from Wikipedia. Thanks for the post, interesting. Mike Allen 01:41, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
TIME also disagrees with the claim that the hoax started on Wikipedia:
The rumors started on a radio show Thursday morning, and within hours, Crowe was one of the most searched terms on the Internet. [...] Gossip like this often originates on a single blog – in this case Seven Sided Cube [...]
Regards, HaeB (talk) 10:44, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

South Park

I think that we should acknowledged his apperence in south park, it seems soo reliable — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlxeMsatain (talk • contribs) 04:23, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Russell Crowe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:34, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:34, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Russell_Crowe/Archive_1&oldid=1142776651"