Talk:Kate Winslet

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed biographical guide to actors and filmmakers on Wikipedia.

Contents

[edit] "Idealistic" existence

Sonmeone needs to remove the pharse "Idealistic existence" and replace it with "Ideal existence", or rephrase it in some way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.40.24.189 (talk) 11:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Nothing's stopping you from doing so. 23skidoo (talk) 14:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Apart from the article's semi-protected status:) Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I've removed the whole sentence as it doesn't really belong: more like a fansite than an encyclopedia.Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Marriage

I thought that Kate Winslet was married to director Sam Mendes of American Beauty fame. This article says that she is married to someone named Liam Donnelly, is this a mistake? Aliendood 05:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Kate is most definitely married to Sam Mendes. The article also claims she was linked to Jeff Smeenge and Anthony Bregman but I don't recall her ever being linked with them. Zenitram82 20:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removing fansites

I agree that Wikipedia should not be a collection of links to improve one's Google score, but there is a time and a place where fansite links are necessary. I'm specifically thinking anime articles here ... oftentimes, the original site is in Japanese anyway, and if there is an English translation it's typically just a web front for selling DVDs, so we very often have to rely on fansites for our information (or at least our external links). How do this mesh with Wikipedia policy? I agree that seven fansites might be going overboard, but surely we could pick out the best one or two and allow it to remain linked, as it's going to have all sorts of information you won't find on the IMDB page? --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 19:18, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for contacting me regarding this issue. As you know, verifiability is a serious concern at Wikipedia, especially in light of the recent negative press coverage we've received related to the John Seigenthaler fiasco. With regards to celebrities, we should only link to official websites, not fansites, for information. Should the reader want to know more beyond official sources cited, they can always refer to Google for fansites and such. In addition to WP:NOT, the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy states: Wikipedia should only publish material that is verifiable and is not original research. One of the keys to writing good encyclopedia articles is to understand that they should refer only to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by a reputable publisher. The goal of Wikipedia is to become a complete and reliable encyclopedia, so editors should cite credible sources so that their edits can be verified by readers and other editors. If a fansite is the only source for a piece of information, we probably should not be including that piece of information due to verifiability concerns. Hall Monitor 19:41, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Going back to the anime example ... oftentimes the absolute best source of information on something is what could be described as a "fansite". How would you classify the verifiability of these sites? I mean, you could always just watch the anime yourself and you'd see what they were talking about is true. And now going back to Kate Winslet ... her official site probably isn't going to include anything controversial, or at least stuff she doesn't want people knowing. She has it censored. Fansites are probably more honest as they aren't censored in such a fashion. I don't see why some Internet sources (fansites) are automatically blacklisted as reliable sources while other non-fan sites are given a higher footing even though much less work has gone into them? --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 20:36, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
But you don't know when fansites are actually telling the truth or not, unles they cite their sources. And if they do, we'd use their source. For example, let's just say that one fansite gave a detalied reason of Kate's divorce of Jim more than anybody else, but didn't say where they got it from. For all we know,it may be made up. Official sites aren't the only places to find verifiable info about Kate. You can get sources from magazines, books, legit entertainment and news sites, all which aren't as censored as an official site. Read that verifibily policy carefully. --LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!> 21:00, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Main pic

Although Wikipedia isn't censored, the image is POV. The main image is supposed to be a major example of what the subject of the article is. When one looks at the naked pic of Rose, it doesn't describe who Kate Winslet is as an all-around actress, or singer. We should find either a DVD cover with only her on it, or a fair use headshot of Kate. --LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!> 03:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

So your contention is that the picture shows one of the character she plays rather than her herself. I thought you were just editing for nudity. Well, my response is that that is her most famous role and it is her playing that character, and she doesn't have a lot of make-up on that makes her not look like her (a la Charlize Theron in Monster), so I don't see what is wrong with the picture. --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 03:29, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Hey now, don't go deleting the pic until you find something better. A pic of Rose from Titanic is more illustrative in showing who Kate Winslet is than none at all. --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 03:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
I didn't intend to delete the pic. After all, it survived IfD. I originally thought of putting it either by where it talks about Titanic, but there wasn't much verbage, so I put it under her figure, since one of the prominent themes of that particular pic is her figure. As for the main pic, I found an official pic from Kate's agency which would satisfy both the article and WP's policies. --LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!> 04:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Excellent, I'm satisfied now (even if the new pic doesn't exactly merge with my preconceptions of what Kate Winslett looks like). --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 06:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Agreed, I added a new photo, a promo pic from Titanic, that is color and should hopefully be ok with everyone. AriGold 16:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • See the problem is that all photos of her on the page are now 9 years out-of-date. People change considerably in that amount of time. While the picture you just added is prettier, I think the one Lbmixpro found is more accurate. And besides, we already have the pretty picture angle covered in the OTHER picture. Which, by the way, I'm still trying to find the DVD somewhere so I can do a screengrab and get a better version. --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 16:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
I see what you mean. I'll keep looking. I changed it back. How's this...
Image:KatePromoNeverland.JPG
AriGold 16:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I suppose that one's better. How recent is Neverland anyway? --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 16:47, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually it looks like it's fairly recent. I just saw that outfit on the Neverland promotional pictures page in IMDB, along with some stuff from Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. Only problem is she's in character and wearing costumes/has dyed hair in those two pics. We really just need a good illustrative photo showing her being herself. And I'm not having much luck finding anything like that. Even her main photo on IMDB is just from Neverland. --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 16:53, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

If this were Pornopedia I would argue in favor of this pic (in addition to the other two), but frankly, that would be too contentious. People are already reverting the Titanic photo as it is, and that barely shows tits. I just searched all of the Google Image results for Kate Winslet and I didn't find a better version of the Titanic pic. That's really, really sad. It's only the highest grossing nude scene ever. *Sigh*. I'll just have to ask my friends if any of them have the DVD. --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 16:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Any idea on how one might get ahold of Kate Winslet? Maybe through her press person? I bet she's probably aware at least of the existence of Wikipedia (most people are) ... would it be within the realm of the feasible to ask for a recent (and CC/GFDL) pic? I know on IMDB most actors/actresses pay $35 to put a pic on their bio ... here it would be free! --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 16:50, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I was the one who changed the Titanic picture back, when you said the reasons you thought it was no good. I changed it to the Neverland one, it's from 2004. AriGold 18:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

can someone add a link to the old picture? Streamless 21:04, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal Biographical Detail

I think it's possible to get overly concerned with the photographs, they seem good enough to me. The article however is a pretty sparse coverage of her. I came to check it out because I saw an interesting AMEX ad (yes, of course not a credible source) where she (apparently biographically) describes some pretty incredible events in her life -- almost drowning, dying, etc. Seemed interesting so I came for her bio but see nothing -- which could either mean there's nothing to it or it's just WIP but anyone if anone has more info I'm curious! --Joshhannah 08:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that we need verifiable sources. And adcopy doesn't count. Maybe if you can find a biography of her or something. --Cyde Weys votetalk 21:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

ha, I'm officially an idiot. Here's the amex ad: [1]. The events recalled -- drowning, imprisoned, whatever are just references to roles she has played I think. To be ignored! --Joshhannah 17:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Yep, that's right - they are all roles she has played. For example, at 17 she went to prison for murder = Heavenly Creatures. Almost drowned at 20 = Titanic. And so on.

And I have just added a paragraph to this effect. 23skidoo 03:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Gotta love the best known for Heavenly Creatures and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, and not mentioning her role in Titanic, the highest grossing movie of all-time.

[edit] Spoken word album?

The article mentions her winning a Grammy for a spoken word album yet fails to identify the album. Someone with that info should add it. Thanks! 23skidoo 03:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Done.

[edit] Recent Edits

Just wanted to say this article looks a lot better. Thanks! Bremen 05:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bye-bye image

I was going to revert the edit that removed the article's image as I feel that fair use is maintained because Kate Winslet qualifies as part of the film's "contents". However the image taken from Eternal Sunshine was quite poor and even included a dialogue subtitle? What's up with that? I think a screenshot taken from the film qualifies as fair use, but it should be one without text. Since Titanic is her best-known role, it is probably more appropriate to use an image from that film. In any event, an image needs to be located to replace the one deleted. 23skidoo 15:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The image used to replace it was much better but was AGAIN deleted because of an interpretation of the fair use rules. One more time -- the rules say screenshots can be used to illustrate the CONTENTS of a film. Kate Winslet is one of the CONTENTS of the film illustrated! 23skidoo 15:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

What about this Titanic one.I didn't uploaded this one.User: Alfredosolis

Example No. 8 under FU:counterexamples is the stupidest, most idiotic and brainless thing I have ever read on Wikipedia. In fact I contend it has been added as vandalism. If we can't use images to show what a person looks like ... Anyway, if the Titanic image is no good then we're back to using the Romance and Cigarettes one. This is getting absolutely insane. 23skidoo 11:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the picture should be of Titanic that's her most famous roll.

[edit] First Name

This is getting annoying. I'm a huge Kate fan and I've NEVER heard of her first name being Katherine! Zenitram82 00:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah...I've never heard this either. I thought her name was just Kate. Bremen 07:50, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citation Needed

I'd like to nominate this article has having the earliest { {cite}} tag in any article, ever.

70.91.178.185 23:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Beetle

Was anyone aware that she has a beetle named after her? Agra katewinsletae is a ground beetle from Costa Rica described in 2002. I think this is rather interesting (insects being my thing) but I couldn't see anywhere this could fit into the article. Any ideas? Richard Barlow 11:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Lol, out of all the things they could name after her, they chose a beetle...still, better than what most of us have...I still find it funny and odd though! I suppose you could add that in the trivia section?Gammondog 22:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

There isn't a trivia section! I would start one but I know some people disapprove of them. Richard Barlow 07:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oscar claims

It is deceiving to claim, "there have been only two occasions where two actors playing the same character have both been nominated for an Oscar; Winslet was a nominee in both instances." It would be better to say, 'there have only been two occasions where two actors playing the same character in the same film..." because Judi Dench and Cate Blanchett were both nominated for playing the same character in the same year for Shakespeare in Love and Elizabeth. 71.28.137.145 23:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I've just changed this - Brando and De Niro were also both nominated (and won) for playing the same character - in The Godfather and The Godfather Part II

[edit] Immigrants to England??

Why was she put in that category?! Zenitram82 03:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC) Whatever reason I removed it. --Spartaz 05:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Funny, I just noticed this comment about a nonsense category, and I immediately know who would have done it, and sure enough it was him [2] --ArmadilloFromHellGateBridge 05:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction

I'm puzzled as to why Heavenly Creatures is featured so prominently (alongside Titanic) in the introduction - is this because the person who added it was a Heavenly Creatures fan, rather than because it's actually one of her most notable roles?

Since nobody has replied to this, I've snipped it out. The role (including the praise she received for it) is still discussed in the appropriate place.

I was wondering, if Heavenly Creatures was no box office success, how can she be best known for that role if Sense and Sensibility brought her higher recognization? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ginnina (talk • Ginnina 00:12, 24 January 2008

[edit] Body image statement

Per WP:BLP I have removed the following statement from the article: "Has banned any mention of body image in her household due to frustration over Hollywood's obsession with weight" on the grounds that the source cited [3] is a blog and blogs are generally prohibited from being used as "reputable" sources (and this one in particular source doesn't seem to have any purpose other than poking fun at Winslet). If someone can find a magazine, newspaper, non-blog Internet, or television source in which Winslet is quoted in support of this statement, please feel free to put it back. 23skidoo 15:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AMEX commercial

An anonymous unregistered editor deleted the paragraph about Kate's AMEX commercial, stating it "isn't that important". I disagree. For one thing, these ads are extremely widely circulated -- people still remember Karl Malden's AMEX ads 30 years later. But beyond that, the commercial is notable for how it presented Winslet and represented the different facets of her career. Whether the paragraph should be shortened or reworded is not the issue here. Let's see about getting consensus before blindly deleting it. I personally think it's fine as-is. 23skidoo 16:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New image

Minor point - is it possible to indicate in the caption which year the new infobox image comes from? I'm assuming either 2006 or 2007. 23skidoo 14:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] British Ex-Pat

I realise that Kate is very proud to be British, blah, blah. As of now she spends most of her time in New York City so that is why I added her to the list. Just thought I'd make that clear before someone removes her from that category! Zenitram82 20:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

But has she chosen to relocate, and potentially move towards getting US citizenship, or is she there primarily for work reasons? Just because she spends a lot of time in NYC does not necessarily make her an ex-pat. Billy Connolly was never considered a Scottish ex-pat and he lived in LA for a number of years (possibly still does). 23skidoo 21:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Err... I guess you're right. She has a home in England and she claims she spends her time in NYC mainly for work so I guess she isn't technically an ex-pat. Zenitram82 21:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Physical Characteristics

It seems to me that the entire paragraph about Kate's "whopping" large feet and her "impressive" bust (which is actually a very average size) is POV and inappropriate in both tone and content. Ms. Winslet is one of the most acclaimed actresses working, certainly of her generation. Do we care what size shoe she wears? How her feet compare to one of her co-stars? Uncited claims about her alleged emotional issues about the topic? It looks like something cut and pasted from some foot-centric celeb blog or something. If there aren't any reasonable arguments for the continued inclusion of this paragraph, I'd say that it should be taken right out.Dreamalynn 20:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)dreamalynn

I agree, Dreamalynn, and so I've removed the suspected OR, POV, and definitely unencyclopedic paragraph. Here it is in its entirety in case it can be re-added, complete with sources:
Winslet claims that her feet are still the only part of her body she sorely wishes she could change. Her feet are a whopping size 11, yet she is only 5'6", though her bust size is an impressive 34C. Not only was she sorely teased as a child about them, but her "Titanic" co-star Leonardo DiCaprio teased her immensely when he noticed their disproportional size. Winslet claimed this brought back a lot of unpleasant memories. Winslet remarked that her feet are the same exact size as DiCaprio's and he's a 6'1" man and she's a little woman at 5'6". Winslet has to wear exquisite dressy shoes at Hollywood Premiers, but they do not make shoes in her size and the ones she has to wear are far too small, which are painful to wear. She claims that it is a pain to find shoes that actually fit and she "picks at her feet" quite a bit, perhaps it an attempt to reduce them. [citation needed]
María (críticame) 18:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inside the Actors Studio

She appeared in Inside the Actors Studio - very cool interview... she talked about the peopple she's worked with - including that the had to pet another actor (keitel) as though he was a dying dog she was helping to die...--Keerllston 21:16, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:KateWinsletTitanic3.jpg

Image:KateWinsletTitanic3.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 22:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Opinionated claims

"Although she seems to be living an almost idealistic existence, it wasn't always that way." This sentence is anti-encyclopedic. Please remove it. - KW —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.104.87 (talk) 03:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

  • As I said to the other anonymous poster, there's nothing stopping you from doing so yourself. 23skidoo (talk) 15:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Well you do have to have an account as the article's semiprotected. I've removed it. Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:KateWinsletTitanic3.jpg

Image:KateWinsletTitanic3.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:KateWinsletTitanic3.jpg

Image:KateWinsletTitanic3.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 13:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Drawing...?

If the picture of the lady in the titanic was real who was it then? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.183.174.189 (talk) 16:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Drawing 2...?

did Leonardo DiCaprio really see Kates personal belongings of her body? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.183.174.189 (talk) 16:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


I would wreck that chick. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.189.129.84 (talk) 08:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)