Talk:Jamie Lee Curtis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Jamie Lee Curtis article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.
This article is supported by WikiProject Peerage.
This article, category, or template is part of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to horror film and fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.

Contents

[edit] Vandalism

Nobody can prove if JLC is a hermaphrodite or not. but i can it's true.

In an attempt to please both parties, I added the information in an entirely factual manner. One user decided to delete it entirely because he did not think my sources were reliable. It might be more accurate to say that the user didn't understand the purpose of the referances. The FACT that the rumor exist is wholly reinforced by all three of the sources provided. What sets wikipedia apart is the presence of such information.

Feeling it was wrongly deleted (as removing the referances and adding a 'fact' tag would have better solved the problem). I added the information again and attempted to move the ref tags to more suitable place. A bot accused me of unproductive posting and reverted back the user's version. I would just like to know what was so unproductive about that. 71.57.140.239 (talk) 06:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the problem here is that for a rumor to become noteworthy, then the rumor would have to have some sort of significant effect over-and-above its existence as a rumor. Otherwise Wikipedia becomes a list of every rumor that starts. Gomez2002 (talk) 13:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why is her weight on here?

Why is her weight on here? lol.. is she a boxer? Is that really relevant? Also, the AARP thing is just a recent news item, not encyclopedia material... i would think. I'll delete that sentence if nobody objects. Angelatomato (talk) 21:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hermaphrodite

Really? Nothing about the hermaphrodite rumors? That she was born with both sets...its as nig as the richard gear gerbil thing...

Yea, I'm not too sure about the hermaphrodite thing...heard it before plenty of times, but not too sure as to the veracity.(Marc82281 04:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC))

4.12.07 I think what this is referring to is "androgen insensitivity syndrome" (see Wiki article [beware of doctorese!]). Allegedly there was an interview given during the 90s where Ms. Curtis revealed that she had that syndrome, it therefore rendering her infertile. Where/when this interview was given, I have no clue, but it was brought up in my health&physiology class recently. 63.97.219.197 01:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)Melissa

5.14.07 Is it approporiate to refer to her as "it" in this section of the article? Maybe there is some protocol for the use of pronouns with respect to hermaphrodites, but if not, calling her "it" comes off a little gruff and insensitive. If I were a hermaphrodite, I don't think that I would like to be called "it".

Come on, people, is there really any doubt regarding the sex of Jamie Lee Curtis? Speculation regarding her supposed chromosomal irregularity is as unsubstantiated (no one can seem to dig up this "interview" in which she discusses it, and everything else has the classic signs of an urban legend) as it is irrelevent--she may or may not be able to have children the natural way, which, of course is between her and her gynocologist, but by any definition Jamie Lee Curtis is quite obviously a woman. And a striking one at that. Peace. --buck 21:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
http://www.snopes.com/movies/actors/jamie.asp samwaltz 01:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Well it's quite obvious Cowicide is a liberal a-hole. Why do you have to mention Bush in this discussion? He has nothing to do with this. You should mention Clinton. After all The Clintons kiss Hollywood ass, rent out the Lincoln bedroom to celebs, kiss barbara Streisands ass, etc.. You have the wrong President.--24.189.35.249 (talk) 20:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

There is a strong, pretty widespread rumor that Bush was born evil and without much of a brain. Shall we add that to his page? Cowicide (talk) 02:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

2.7.08 To state that "by any definition Jamie Lee Curtis is quite obviously a woman" is innacurrate if you are basing this soley on her secondary sex characteristics. Women with Androgen Insensitivity are born as genetic males. The undescended testicles produces normal amounts of testosterone, but due to a lack of testosterone receptors they do not respond to it (they are insensitive to the androgen). As such these genetic males will have no Wolffian development which gives rise to parts of the male reproductive system. The undescended fetal testes also produces Mullerian Inhibiting Factor, which suppresses the normal development of the female internal genitalia. The external genitalia does develop normally however, and the genotypic male looks like a phenotypic woman, quite possibly a very beautiful woman, with normal breasts and usually a short vagina. Some "women" actually go throughout life unaware of this, attributing their lack of a menstrual cycle to being underweight. It is often discovered when they marry and try to conceive and fail, and it is brought to the attention of a doctor. It is quite possible that Jamie Lee Curtis is Androgen Insensitive...


How is Jamie Lee Curtis "obviously a woman" when she has an Adam's apple? 70.174.25.89 (talk) 08:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Gimme a break. Everyone has an Adam's apple. In general, a larger Adam's apple means a deeper voice. Hence men have more prominent Adam's apples. So do deeper-voiced women--for instance, Ann Coulter, Jodie Foster, and >gasp< Jamie Lee Curtis. And if a prominent adam's apple is a dead giveaway that "a woman is really a man" (in spite of appearing in dozens of movies and magazines wearing skimpy bikinis and lingerie) then some major editing is required for the articles on Gwyneth Paltrow, Kirsten Dunst, and Cameron Diaz. Or wait...maybe, just maybe, it's possible that a tall, slender woman with a long neck might have a more prominent Adam's apple. 68.13.246.251 (talk) 06:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

- Actually the Adam's Apple or Laryngeal prominence has very little to do with how deep one's voice is. The vocal cords play a larger role in this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.50.72.156 (talk) 06:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


Actually, I think she has something called Turner's Syndrome. Where she is born with the X Chromosome for females but her father didn't give her another sex chromosome. Therefore she has some female characteristics but is completely infertile. The second X Chromosome that would make her a female is what would give her ovaries etc. And she doesn't have an Adam's Apple! Everyone would be born a female it's the a gene on the Y chromosome that sparks the release of Testoserone to change the embryo from female to male! So, now that I'm officially a dork, I still think she has Turner's Syndrome. Julie 12:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


Actually Julie, the gene you are talking about on the Y-chromosome (Mullerian Inhibiting Factor) does not spark a release in testosterone to change the embryo from a female to male. More accurately, it prevents the development of the mullerian structures by inducing apoptosis (programmed cell death). Also it is highly unlikely she has Turner's. People with Turner's have characteristic dysmorphic facial features. They have low set ears, low hair line, they are short, web necked, they have a broad shield like chest with poor breast development. They often have cardiac abnormalities. Given her appearance, I highly doubt Jamie Lee Curtis has Turner's. As I said earlier, its more likely she has Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome, if anything at all... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.50.72.156 (talk) 19:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

All of this is moot. Until a reliable source is provided, it's all speculation. --buck (talk) 16:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I too learned this in my molecular neuroscience class. And the arguments about ruling out this rumor based upon physical characteristics are ridiculous. There's plenty of androgen insensitive individuals that blend in with the rest of us. As for the "it" argument, she definitely has decided to live her life as a she, and thus she's a she... Bdg4 (talk) 00:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Image

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

[edit] Baroness

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


[edit] Children's book author

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

[edit] Lady Haden-Guest

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

[edit] Salary History

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

Salary history really does seem like encyclopaedia material. It would be great for research purposes to have a source of salaries for various actors and actresses for any number of reasons. I supposed a lot of the information for actors could be found on IMDB, but I don't see why it shouldn't be on Wikipedia as well. Khyth 19:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Name?

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

Under UK rules she wouldn't be either — peerages replace surnames, so her legal name is "The Right Honourable Jamie Lee, Baroness Haden-Guest" as far as British law is concerned (the article should probably mention this). I can't comment on US law, as I know next to nothing about it. However, I'm almost certain we don't have a policy on what to do when legal names in different jurisdictions clash. As the title is British, however, it makes sense to use British conventions when using it as part of her name. Proteus (Talk) 00:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
I changed the lede to match this info. It would be nice to get some kind of confirmation on her actual legal name in the US. --Jfruh 21:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Not to be nit-picky about the name, but I think that the title shouldn't be used as the very first name in the article unless we have some confirmation that she legally changed her name to same in the US. I know as you said that her name changed automatically under British law to reflect her husband's title, but since she's US citizen resident in the US most of the time, I think her name under US law should come first. Anyway, as you note she doesn't legally have a surname, yet her surname is listed as "Haden-Guest" in the edit you just made... --Jfruh 01:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
I definitely don't think that it is necessary to mention the title at the top as she never uses it:
"Nobody addresses me as Lady Guest anywhere except perhaps at the House of Lords. It's what they do there—and it's probably the only place in the world where anyone will address me in that manner even if I go, `Oh no, no, no, just call me Jamie.'"
As it is mentioned further down that is enough. Arniep 20:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
It is our policy to start articles with full legal names, regardless of what people use, so what she says is totally irrelevant (especially as she doesn't even appear to know what her title is, which is rather careless of her). See, for instance, Thomas Pakenham, Bertrand Russell and Colin Moynihan. Proteus (Talk) 23:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
But you haven't answered the question of whether it is her legal name in the country where she lives and was (I believe) married. The version we had a while back -- "Jamie Lee Curtis (born November 22, 1958), known under British law as The Right Honourable Jamie Lee, Baroness Haden-Guest" -- seems to me the best way around that question until it is answered definitively. --Jfruh 23:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Proteus has an obsession with titles. It is just completely inappropriate to include this at the top of an article of a hollywood actress especially as she has said she is never addressed as that and never uses it. Arniep 01:14, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
I have an obsession with accuracy. If you have a problem with that, I suggest you find something else to do with your time, since Wikipedia clearly isn't for you. Proteus (Talk) 22:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately it's not what policy says the article should start with (and would be a completely unprecedented format). Proteus (Talk) 22:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
I guess my question for you, Proteus, is: Why should the law of a country where she does not live and of which she is not a citizen determine her legal name, or determine her "first citation" name in Wikipedia? I think this may be a case where different jurisdictions would consider her to have different legal names. What does policy have to say about that? --Jfruh 23:32, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't consider it an issue — it simply says that people with titles have articles starting with them. Proteus (Talk) 16:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, perhaps it should consider that an issue. I shall take it up over there then. --Jfruh 18:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Just to point out, US citizens may not accept British titles. It is the law. By doing so, they relinquish their US citizenship. Barring evidence that Curtis has done so, the Baroness title is simply what the folks in the UK call her. Risker 05:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Then I will point out that there is no such law in the U.S. What you refer to is called the Titles of Nobility Amendment, which was proposed by congress as an amendment to the U.S. Constitution. (in the early 1800's) Although being passed by the Senate and the House, requires ratification by two-thirds of the states to become effective law. (And has been passed by twelve states as of this time) It needs another 26 states before it could become law. Atom 06:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Getting pretty far off-topic here, but the law may not be as clear cut as Atom claims. The U.S. Constitution does forbid federal and state government from granting titles of nobility, and also forbids certain persons from accepting such titles while holding office (Article 1 Sections 9 and 10). Also you may want to have a look at 8 USC 1448(b) and 8 CFR 337.1, requiring renunciation of such titles in order to be naturalized, and finally be aware that accepting such titles may indeed jeopardize your citizenship if acceptance involves taking an oath to a foreign state or its political subdivisions. Oh, and by the way constitutional amendments require ratification of three-fourths of the states, not two-thirds. 148.87.1.171 09:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Addressing her it would correctly be "Lady Haden-Guest". In introducing, "Lady Haden-Guest, Baroness of Saling". All titled people may "style" themselves as they desire (or as the Queen desires). As such, it would seem that Lady Haden-Guest prefers to be styled as "Jamie Lee Curtis". Atom 16:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peerage title in opening paragraph

From Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies):

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

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

The full title should NOT be the first mentioned as she is rarely, if ever, referred to by the full title. The MOS guidance above does not require that it must be the first mentioned, only suggests that the title should be mentioned in the lede. older ≠ wiser 13:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
...the article should start with the complete version, and to me, "start with" means it comes first. But I won't change it again and start an edit war (although I have made a slight change as "Jamie Lee" is not part of her "title"). JRawle (Talk) 14:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
I think your change is fine. I don't really know (or care all that much) what the official title is. There needs to be a element of common sense as well -- if a person is not commonly known by the title it seems rather peculiar to put forward that title in the first instance of the lede as if it were common. older ≠ wiser 14:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

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

It should be 'Lady Haden-Guest' not Baroness. No-one except Wikipedia refers to the wife of a Baron as a Baroness, however "correct" it may be in absolute terms. We make ourselves look like idiots for saying so. David | Talk 22:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
So if I were to provide a counter-example to your claim, let's say Burke's calling the wife of the late Lord Soames "The Baroness Soames" [1], you'd stop doing this? Proteus (Talk) 22:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
I'll take that edit as a "no", then. Come on, you're not this ridiculous — the whole "backing up assertions" business works both ways, you know. I've provided a respectable source doing what you're saying is never done, so are you going to provide one saying that calling Barons' wives Baronesses should never be done, or am I to assume you're just going to ignore the talk page and revert until I get bored and go away? Proteus (Talk) 23:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vitucci grandfather

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

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

[edit] Newer picture

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

[edit] Anon adding titles

I dont know what the rules/preferences are for noble titles so someone may want to clean up the matter that has been added by the anon in the intro. It probably makes more sense to be listed later in the article. JoshuaZ 18:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


I was just wondering if this article should mention the popular rumor that Jamie Lee Curtis is an XY female?

Hell no. Speculation without proof. There are plenty of XX females who choose to adopt rather than bear children. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 135.214.40.162 (talk) 19:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC).

The hermaphrodite thing is extremely out of place here in this article; the fact that soemone keeps hopping on the oppurtunity to put it back in every time it is deleted makes it seem like someone is getting their jollies from slandering people and putting in extremely unverified claims. In accordance to the standards of wiki, I suppose stating it in the article as a rumour is acceptable, but by putting it up in spotlight as a clear bias is just crude and unfit for an encyclopedia. I actually only learned about this rumour after reading this article; it is interesting, but it is unverified, a rumour, and little more than fictional speculation. This is an encyclopedia, not a gossip magazine. I propose the article be cleaned of the hermaphrodite references, because true or not, it is unverified and a wild rumour. I also suggest the article be locked down to prevent anymore inclusion of the hermaphrodite claim, until true confirmation can be had (though this is unlikely).

      • Until someone can link or produce a reputable source regarding Curtis' gender issues, then it's a moot point. Likening it to an urban legend is an apt metaphor. I would like to shed light on the fact that it is impossible to "slander" anyone on Wikipedia. Wiki is essentially a written compilation and thus cannot be used to "slander" someone. Written defamation is considered libel. This is something that should have been picked up in high school. This is just one more reason why WIKI can't truly be considered a serious source of scholarship.

[edit] MORE magazine

Jamie Lee as she really is -- no lights, no makeup, no retouching. Photo: MORE magazine/September 2002

Jamie Lee Curtis: True Thighs Jamie Lee Curtis wants you to know the difference between celebrity illusion and all-too-real life. [3]

Four years ago, Jamie Lee Curtis made magazine history by revealing her true body -- even a poochy midriff -- in More. Could she get any more real? She could. She does. Jamie Lee Curtis: On Growing Older & Wiser [4]

She is kind of famous, for her efforts to fight magazine-cover-beauty-fakery. Seems worth a mention in the article. -69.87.199.172 11:30, 1 September 2007 (UTC)