Talk:Nicole Kidman/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Origins

WRT Nicole's origins, she self-identifies as Australian (at least in Australia), spent most of her childhood there, trained there, had her first acting roles there, still has all her family there, etc. etc - so I don't think it's accurate to describe her as American. However, seeing her biography discusses her origins in some detail I think it's probably easiest to let people read that and make up their own mind as to her national identity.

Doesn't she LIVE in Sydney now? User:Mark Ryan

She is an Australian citizen, her parents are (and always have been) Australian citizens. Her adopted children have Australian and US Citizenship. Her parents were Australian working for an American business, hence her foreign birth. She lives in Watson's Bay in Sydney, although she has apartments in the US and UK. - User:MMGB

Though the facts on Birth could be correct. Could someone maybe change the wording to have a less negative POV sound? I doubt people walked out during the film, because it has yet to premier - MacGyverMagic User:MacGyverMagic

Can someone confirm the pre-screening of Birth was during the film festival of Cannes? [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 10:28, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC) This website certainly says so Peter Shearan 11:29, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have rewritten the article to be more in keeping with it being in Wikipedia, and not part of publicity material. In particular:

  • I have included details of her parents and her young life as a more factual chapter
  • I have excluded all that media blah about the reasons for the marriage being dissolved - anyone can find that in one of the dozens of fanzine websites
  • I have excluded simple (padding?) statements about whom she acted with in various films: those facts will be in the Wikipedia articles dealing with those films
  • I have made much more of her humanitarian awards

I am naturally perfectly happy for further additions, if they include factual matters not included elsewhere. For example, since working on it, I notice that today's London Times shows that she acted at the Donmar Warehouse theatre, London, in 1998. Perhaps someone can supply details? Peter Shearan 16:42, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gay Icon Project

In my effort to merge the now-deleted list from the article Gay icon to the Gay icons category, I have added this page to the category. I engaged in this effort as a "human script", adding everyone from the list to the category, bypassing the fact-checking stage. That is what I am relying on you to do. Please check the article Gay icon and make a judgment as to whether this person or group fits the category. By distributing this task from the regular editors of one article to the regular editors of several articles, I believe that the task of fact-checking this information can be expedited. Thank you very much. Philwelch 21:03, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Can someone explain here presence in the gay icons section???Blnguyen 07:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Ok, it's been a year now, since added. In order for this person to remain in Category:Gay icons, the article needs to mention this "fact" and cite reliable sources to support it. --Rob 17:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Images and missing images

I don't believe this. There was once a perfectly legitimate (and rather nice) public domain image of Nicole Kidman on this page, which I uploaded ages ago. I was very happy at the time that there were no copyright problems.

What has happened in the meantime? Three pictures have replaced the old one, all of which come from dubious, unspecified sources and are thus likely to be removed again soon.

Great. Now I had a look at an earlier revision of the page, thinking it still contained the old image. But oh no, not any more: "Missing image" is all you can see there.

How can anyone be so short-sighted as to actually delete an image that does not cause any legal problems and replace it with three photos which do? <KF> 15:56, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia. That's all the explanation one really needs.

[edit] nudie pic

I cannot imagine a more honest picture of nicole kidman. Why remove it? it's fair use, it illustrates her body in a way that no text can. I really don't understand the removal. please explain.--Muchosucko 09:36, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

  • I agree with you, no words can describe this woman. She is my favorite. However, this is an encyclopedia format, and should be edited as such. This site is accessible to and intended for people (and Little People) of all ages. Parents have enough online woes without having to worry about their child viewing naked women at an online encyclopedia. I suggest you try a resolution dispute with Wiki if you disagree. Amerindianarts 21:38, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
  • As a compromise, I added a linkimage instead. -- Ian ≡ talk 01:11, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Agreed, naked images are lethal!--Muchosucko 02:03, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I suppose, but I don't see the compromise. It provides absolutely no information that couldn't be stated in the sentence "Supermodel has posed nude". Rarely do photos of questioable content provide useful information, and I say questionable because you wouldn't find it in an encyclopedia. If you saw the photo in a Playboy you wouldn't question the publication's credibility. But, if I saw a nude photo of Nicole Kidman in an encyclopedia I would immediately question the publication's credibility. Nothing more than eye candy for probably those same lewd individuals who send me junk mail everyday with links to porn sites and advice on how to make my dick bigger. I mean, even the ID of the person who originally inserted the pic should speak for itself. MUCHOSUCKO??? I think I have badly misjudged the objectives/goals (cf the Wiki editorial project and its inevidable deletion) of this online "encyclopedia" and have been looking for a way to disengage my user ID, but can't seem to find a way to unregister, or even change it. As an individual who makes a living from the net I am very much concerned with its credibility. I see this encyclopedia headed for the garbage heap.Amerindianarts 02:18, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
Well, most encyclopedias aren't editable. Maybe you should change your idea of what is normal and what is not. Tell me why would you question the article's credibility if you saw a naked picture? I don't understand. Please explain. Also, what exactly is wrong with my user name. Also, please explain. you threw out many assertions, but little explaination. You leave me confused... Seriously, I'm confused, not joking around here. I look forward to your explanation--Muchosucko 02:26, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, the connotations seem a bit obvious. What does MUCHOSUCKO mean? I'll accept your explanation, Although the connotations do seem to be fortified by your Wiki comments. As far as the photo, she is a beautiful woman but it provides no useful information. Just eye candy. And it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. I have a photo of Nic as my desktop background. Is she nude?? No. I don't have to see a nude pic to be informed, or appreciate.Amerindianarts 02:49, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
        • Muchosucko doesn't mean anything. I still don't understand why you dislike my username, it has never been a problem before... That's my explaination, I hope you accept it as you promised you would. It does provide useful information: her breast size, body fat, pubic hair color, are all in the pic. Eye candy yes, but also helpful information. I do have to see a nude pic to be informed and to appreciate. I don't think I'm alone. It's an informative pic. I still don't understand the problem with it. If you think it is not informative -- well there are lotsa things on Wikipedia that you may not find informative, like Quinolone or Image:Corticosterone.png But you don't go off deleting that stuff from articles because other people might find it useful. Please be considerate. like the articles I linked to, we should err on the addition side, not the reduction side.--Muchosucko 02:55, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Its on the delete list and I'll work hard to get it deleted. The information you cite is great for the appropriate place, e.g. Playboy, but I think you are confusing sound editorial judgment with some more base needs that need fulfillment.Amerindianarts 02:59, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Wait you still haven't explained why this is bad. Sound editorial judgement? Why don't you explain this in the open instead of mulling it out in your own head and acting on it. That's what I call base. why should this pic not be in Wikipedia. You keep saying it shouldn't, but you don't explain anything. That is base.--Muchosucko 03:07, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
    • PS. It is not an err on the reduction side. It is the addition that qualifies as information out of proper context. I don't think I can provide you with an explanation you would be satisfied with. As long as I'm a member the photo will not be in the bio. It doesn't belong. There are plenty of other information sources providing the information you wish to include or seek, and none of them call themselves an "encyclopedia" Amerindianarts 03:12, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
Well that's no solution, because I will just add it back... I don't see how your approach of arrogance and superiority will work if I just add it back. Again, you don't explain anything. You say that it is "unencyclopedic" -- well I guess we'll first have to define what "encyclopedic" means before we talk about what is encyclopedic and what is not. If you can't provide a satisfying explaination, I guess it means you do not have one. You can't just get mad, say you can't explain it, and have your way. That's base. It's what children do.--Muchosucko 03:27, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Let's put it this way. The only thing that's base is your idea of encyclopedic info. Go ahead and put it back in. The only reason I left the link is so that people will have the opportunity to vote to have it deleted. I am now going to pose this issue for a dispute resolution. If it stays, then it stays.Amerindianarts 03:32, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

      • Ok, Muchosucko. I visited your website and reviewed your 'contributions', if that term is even appropriate, and all I have to say is that if you had your way Wiki is a would be porn site. It is no wonder you cannot discern the distinction between informative content in an academic format such as an encyclopedia, and 'informative content' as it appears on your website. I think you're a vandal, and probably a pervert as well.Amerindianarts 05:18, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
        • Really? I have more than 1000 edits on my account. Please link to the edits you think make me a vandal. Thanks.--Muchosucko 05:42, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Chop suey for starters. LOL
      • Really, why do you think I was a vandal? I notice you tend to make statements, without backing them up.--Muchosucko 05:47, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Ya know, you keep coming up with this 'making statements without backing them up, but it is right there in black and white. Is that the best you've got?? My position on the Kidman pic is quite explicit and if you view my contribs you would see this. I figure you either have a hard time reading, or you just don't get it. I did like your contribution on the term "pussy" though. It seems you know your field and your concept of editing with content in the proper context does have its uses. Why don't you come up with something other than its 'informative' because I like to look at nude photos.Amerindianarts 05:57, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
      • I say that because it is true. I do look forward to a discussion, but I can't have one if you don't stay on point, and make ad hominem attacks. I have read every single contrib you made on this page. And I've countered you on every point -- even the personal attacks. Then the discussion ends, with you being elitist, or going onto personal attacks, or changing the subject. I am happy to stay on point though. Again: The nudie pic is relevant and informative. It's encyclopedic in my sense of the term, but apparently, not yours. That you see nudity as a perversion speaks more about your character than it does about mine.--Muchosucko 06:03, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Maybe this will work. The net is kind of like television. A parent can block content on a TV to keep their children from viewing what they might consider undesirable content. The same with the net, to a degree. They can monitor where the child surfs, block certain URLs, etc. But where the net is unlike TV is that you have these people supporting and promoting porn sites, or images that parents may find offensive for a child's viewing (or perhaps their own viewing as well). Now, if these sites can impose their set of values on a site such as Wikipedia, where you could expect to find information without a lot of obstacles (things that need monitoring), then it becomes difficult to block what might be considered offensive. This should be a major concern for a site like Wikipedia, which is mirrored by other sites all across the web. The net could easily become saturated. Why is this my concern?? Because I make my living off the net and I am very concerned about its future credibility. Are values being imposed? That is a loaded question that can go either way, but unlike TV, there may be values being imposed in a way not evident in other types of mass media (Television). Everyday I have to sort through my bulk email account to segregate a good email or two from the hundreds of requests for my attention and stating that my answer to having a life is to visit some porn site.This is an imposition upon my privacy. I put it in the trash where it belongs. In regard to the Kidman photo; is it offensive? Not to me. She is a work of art. The photo may be art. But it doesn't belong where you put it. It's informative value is minimal in regard to the content and context, and is simply not needed. It is not important enough to insert into the bio when you weigh its value against possible viewers. Wiki is currently not officially edited for minors. That may be its nemesis, i.e. its credibility as an important information resource. And I am not an elitist. I am a lillte frustrated because I have explained myself quite explicitly and YOU have not resonded with anything of any substance, other than I am an elitist and haven't presented an argument. I have presented plenty of arguable points but you haven't come through on your end. Cite the first amendment for God's sake.Amerindianarts 06:30, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
    • OK, 1)The first amendment is irrelevant. Your argument is loquacious, but it hinges on only a few principles: 2) "I am very concerned about its future credibility" & "weigh its value against possible viewers" -- that naked pictures corrupt Wikipedia's credibility, and that corruption does not outweigh the informative value of the picture. If I were you, I would be more concerned about the open-edit platform that robs wikipedia of its credibility. Quite simply, you have not made the connection between the presence of naked pictures and a loss of credibility. You simply state that it is so because you feel that way, perhaps because -- in your life -- nakedness has been contextualized with sources that lack merit (playboy, spam). In which case, you need to broaden your perspective to include domains where nakedness is contextualized with legitimacy. 3) "Wiki is currently not officially edited for minors." -- This is irrelevant to your above point. Please connect it for me. I don't understand. "I am a little frustrated because I have explained myself quite explicitly" -- But you haven't. --Muchosucko 09:28, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
      • "I haven't" is a simply refusal of acceptance on your part. Your arguments get thinner and thinner. Breast size and pubic hair color don't guarantee success in Hollywood, nor do they convey an individual's talent. Kidman is not well endowed, even by her own well publicized admission. It has also been well publicized that she has lost roles in major movies because she doesn't have a larger bustline. She prevails on sheer talent, and the photo does not contain any information that will convey that fact. Your arguments don't make sense and you simply refuse to acknowledge any argument that does. I sincerely question your motives for the inclusion of the photo as an imposition of a set of editorial values that have no place in an encyclopedic format.Amerindianarts 19:38, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
        • "arguments get thinner and thinner. " -- I disagree, my arguments have gotten better and better. the more I think about this, the more I'm confident of my position. "do they convey an individuals talent." -- they do, physical beauty explains a great deal why nicole kidman succeeds in Hollywood. " It has also been well publicized that she has lost roles in major movies because she doesn't have a larger bust-line." -- And wouldn't it be great to illustrate you point by directing a reader to this picture? "She prevails on sheer talent" -- I disagree, her physique is part of the reason she succeeds. "Your arguments don't make sense and you simply refuse " -- I disagree, I think my arguments do make sense, perhaps, they don't make sense to you, but that alone should not diminish the weight of the argument. "to acknowledge any argument that does" -- are you referring to your arguments? I think you're looking at arguments relative you your perspective. i.e. I am ignoring the arguments that "make sense" to you and making arguments that "don't make sense" to you. Make no mistake, I consider every contrib and argument you make. "I sincerely question your motives" -- The point is, my personality, motives etc. are irrelevant to the argument, this is an ad hominem attack that is irrelevant to the strength of the argument. "imposition of a set of editorial values that have no place in an encyclopedic format" -- Every wiki editor imposes "a set of editorial values", me, you, everybody. So yes I am imposing a set of editorial values that I think have a place in an encyclopedic format. And so are you. We have different values as to what is and is not encyclopedic. Bear in mind that many people at Britannica do not cosider User-editable pages "encyclopedic"--Muchosucko 19:54, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
      • OK. Whatever you say. Amerindianarts 20:22, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
      • However, I think the consensus for image deletion is in agreement with my position. I'm not the only Wikipedian thinking your arguments lack substance.Amerindianarts 21:09, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
        • Really, I think there is no consensus yet. I don't think there is agreement. Some seem apathetic, and some hold strong positions on either side. And I have responded to most, if not all, of the arguments proposed. It's the best I can do.--Muchosucko 21:17, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
Apart from you, Muchosucko, who else is in strong agreement with your position? I scanned the discussion above and I couldn't find anyone. I may have missed someone, though, as I'm tired and haven't had my afternoon tea. --Yamla 21:33, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
No one is in strong agreement with my position. I didn't say anyone was. Why don't you re read my original message?--Muchosucko 21:48, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
Read the argument Yamla. If your afternoon tea doesn't sedate you, the argument will.Amerindianarts 22:02, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
You stated, 'some hold strong positions on either side.' Certainly some hold strong positions against you. But I don't think it is fair to say that some hold strong positions for you. This may not have been what you were intending and indeed, it may not be the only way to read what you wrote. I had thought the argument was pretty much everyone else vs. Muchosucko and your comments made me consider whether I was mistaken. Anyway, do you believe we should request arbitration on this one, Muchosucko? I think there's a procedure for that, though perhaps the delete vote on the picture itself will be sufficient. So far, you haven't done much to convince people (that is, people aren't convinced, not that you haven't tried). And yes, Amerindianarts, I have been reading the arguments. I'm withholding statement because I think others can speak more eloquently than I can on this. --Yamla 22:05, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
"I had thought the argument was pretty much everyone else vs. Muchosucko and your comments made me consider whether I was mistaken" -- You are. There are currently 2 delete votes, 1 keep vote, 1 abastain vote, and three or four who did not vote. That is not consensus. Moreover, one of the delete votes was not absolute-- Rossrs disagreed based on fair use rules. He also questioned the legitimacy of the article, which I responded to. He also said: "Personally I think this discussion belongs on Wikipedia:Copyright problems under the heading of "fair use needing a second opinion", but let's see what happens here first." "But I don't think it is fair to say that some hold strong positions for you" -- I agree, it is not fair to say that of either sides and either positions. That is why I did not.--Muchosucko 22:21, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
Let me clarify - I intended by delete vote to be absolute. The fair rule comments I made still apply as I don't believe a strong case has been made, or can be made, to justify fair use. I don't think the image enhances the article, adds to our knowledge or understanding, enlightens us, or tells us anything of significance about Kidman other than that she has a great body. I still don't believe her pubic hair color is uppermost in producer's minds when they consider her for a part. Let's take your argument one step further. Presumably Rosie O'Donnell doesn't get the type of parts Kidman does because she doesn't have that athletic body. So let's have a look at what's holding her career back. Let's get a full front nude of O'Donnell on her page. It would be equally relevant. Also Meryl Streep, who seems to be surviving on talent alone now that her body is that of a 50+ year old woman. Better have a look at that too, so we can fully appreciate why society is beginning to discriminate against her. That'll be another nudie shot. How about Cher - I'd like to check out whether there really are liposuction scars - that has some impact on the roles she gets offered. I wonder what Estelle Getty looks like nude -well one more can't hurt. That's not idle curiosity either because I think I would need to see her naked to determine why she wasn't given the lead role in The Hours because I think she would have been great. See what happens when your argument is taken to a ridiculous extreme. Anyway back to my original comment. My delete vote was absolute. Rossrs 00:44, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
Well, I'm glad your delete vote was absolute, that's great. "I don't believe a strong case has been made, or can be made, to justify fair use" I believe I made a strong case. I will assume that you find the first part of my fair use defense inadequate. That is, we are using it for research and commentary in a nonprofit educational setting. I don't think you can delete the picture based purely on that ground, and say this picture does not qualify for fair use. Because indeed we are commenting on it as we speak. That alone clears the first requirement of fair use. "hair color is uppermost in producer's minds when they consider her for a part" You've mis-taken my argument -- you have changed the requirements of fair use and article inclusion from one of: is this picture being "commented" on? to one of: is the picture "relevant" to the article, with "relevant" meaning information that relates to producers accepting her for a role. You see how you've implicitly narrowed the requirements from the broad to the narrow? Nay, the requirements for fair use and inclusion in the article are broader than you implicitly imply. Perhaps we can discuss the requirements for what goes into an article and what does not, more clearly. "See what happens when your argument is taken to a ridiculous extreme." & "Let's get a full front nude of O'Donnell" You took my argument to a ridiculous extreme. I did not. The solution is simple - don't take my argument to the extreme. I don't think your approach is a workable argument to the problem. That is: if an ideology, taken to an extreme, is ridiculous: then the original ideology is flawed. That is the erroneous view of Islam many in the West hold: that the doctrines of Islam, taken to an extreme are murderous and ridiculous, and therefore Islam itself is bad. I can take any ideology and worry and obsess about it to a point of ridiculousness, but that alone does not make the original idea flawed. Here is why I don't think showing Kidman naked is beyond the boundaries. She posed naked in a movie, this is how she makes money. She uses her body to gain fame. Her body is an integral part of her success. It is an integral part of why people watch her on screen. None of the actress's you mention do that. And here's the second flip you made. The point you make hinges on a reversal (and perversion) of my original idea. That is, her naked picture portrays why she has had great success. You changed that (or perverted it) to one where we should show naked pictures to explain why one does not succeed. So you have attacked a nonexistent problem, you have set up a straw-man for yourself and slayed it. Again, I'm glad your vote was absolute.--Muchosucko 03:06, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
I was commenting directly on your comment "It does provide useful information: her breast size, body fat, pubic hair color, are all in the pic. Eye candy yes, but also helpful information. I do have to see a nude pic to be informed and to appreciate. I don't think I'm alone. It's an informative pic" because I don't think that's much of a justification. I took it to the nth degree, which is the same approach you took to my comments on the vfd page where you said by my reasoning, all the pictures on the page could be deleted. You can't now say that type of nth degree comment is flawed, when I know damn well it's flawed. That's my point. It was flawed when you did it, and flawed when I did it. I disagree with about 99% of what you say. If you think that of all the hours of footage from Kidman's films, a screenshot from one isolated nude scene is indicative or illustrative of her career success, then I can't argue any further against that type of logic. The bottom line is you want the picture included. I don't believe you have demonstrated anything more than that simple desire to have it included, no matter how you think you've addressed it. I don't see a strong argument. And yes, it's my personal opinion. I'm entitled to it. This is now going around in circles. Unless you have something new to add, I'm withdrawing from this discussion. Rossrs 05:26, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
"I don't think that's much of a justification" & "And yes, it's my personal opinion. I'm entitled to it. " OK Personal Opinion, its nice, but still irrelevant. "which is the same approach you took to my comments on the vfd page where you said by my reasoning, all the pictures on the page could be deleted" No, you are wrong here. you extended and perverted my position. I wanted to include a picture that illustrated the integral reason why Nicole Kidman succeeds in Hollywood -- and her eagerness to pose naked in films. You peversed this by saying that I advocated naked pictures for the sake of showing why people fail. Bizzare. I strictly applied your definitions of what images could be placed in an article. You concluded about this picture the following: "This image does not address the text in the Kidman article". If this picture of Nicole Kidman's face and body does not address the text in the Nicole Kidman article: then how can any other picture of Nicole Kidman somehow better address the text in the Kidman article? Thus, I said: "It does address the text, the text discusses her appearances in films, the screenshot illustrates such an appearance, and it illustrates why she got the part -- Under your reasoning, all the pictures in the article might be removed" "This is now going around in circles. " No actually we are not; we are analyzing our arguments, and I don't think that is circular. "I'm withdrawing from this discussion. " OK, I don't see why you should though.--Muchosucko 07:27, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

I asked for something new, and great, you've provided it. The description on the image page is very good. Much better than many. It almost fulfils the requirement. You've established a general rationale. Excellent. You need to address why the fair use rationale applies specifically to the Nicole Kidman article. You need point 6 "The use of this image benefits/improves/strengthens/supports etc the article because............". You also need to record who owns the copyright, and to do this you should be sure it's from Eyes Wide Shut. A couple of people have suggested it's not. I think it is, but haven't seen the whole film.

Also you assert that the article itself is addressed by the image, and I still disagree. I think you could easily add a paragraph discussing her willingness to appear nude - it does set her apart from many actresses, and is therefore valid. Has been nude for example in Birthday Girl, The Human Stain etc (plus on stage in The Blue Room - could the image be from there? I doubt it.... but maybe). Could relate it to her willingness to be in controversial roles such as Birth. Could maybe strengthen it by including for example a quote from her about why she does it, why she consider it important. You would then have a superb case to the keep the image. I have nothing against the image, especially if it's a link, rather than appearing on the page itself.

Finally, just a courtesy thing. Please be consistent in your approach to other people's comments. Discussion pages are appropriate places for the inclusion of personal opinions. You freely express them when you say things such as you need to see a nude image to fully appreciate.. etc. That seems to be part of your argument, but it's not purely scientific. Much of what you say is your personal opinion, your personal interpretation, your personal observation. I think you have every right to express those types of thoughts, but please extend that to other contributors, eg : me. I'm offended that you quote back what I've said and say "Personal opinion, its nice, but still irrelevant". That's a very easy and sweeping way to completely dismiss a point, and is not a fair approach in a discussion. My ad hominem comments were out of place and equally unfair. I regret using them, and apologise for not keeping purely to the subject at hand. I'll be happy to withdraw my objection to the image, but these points need to be addressed - and that's not just my personal opinion - it's all drawn from Wikipedia guidelines and official policy, ok? ;-) Rossrs 02:42, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

      • I viewed "Eyes Wide Shut" recently and do not remember any nudity this explcit. She does appear nude in scenes, but I don't remember a full frontal. It is definitely not from "Birthday Girl" or the "Human Stain". It may be from her stage performance.Amerindianarts 07:07, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
        • I wondered about that. To me it looks like a screenshot, but if it's from The Blue Room, establishing who owns the copyright could be more problematic. I'm sure you'd remember if it was Eyes Wide Shut. There is a scene where Tom Cruise approachs her while she's in front of a mirror, and on second thought, I agree that was less explicit. I haven't seen Birthday Girl or The Human Stain but I know there is muted nudity in them, so I was just throwing them out in the ether. hmmm it's a mystery. Rossrs 09:48, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
          • I've been trying to find something to indicate where this image came from. I did a Google image search on "Nicole Kidman" (heaps of photos of course) and the only ones where her hair looked similar were for Eyes Wide Shut. So I did a Google image search for Eyes Wide Shut. There are screenshots from her "nude in the mirror" scene - they are from the waist up, because the mirror was not a full length, plus it has a pretty ornate frame. So, no closer to an answer. Rossrs 10:17, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Another user has commented on the image delete issue that it isn't and they even doubt that the photo is legitimate. I doubt it too. There are too many things about this photo that don't seem real. I don't know that Kidman has ever done a full frontal, and personally doubt that she would. I might be wrong, but the individual in the photo has had some 'sunning', which is very un-Kidman like.Amerindianarts 17:07, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
        • I noticed the other comment. I don't know. I wouldn't be surprised if she'd done a full frontal, maybe not in film, but more likely in The Blue Room. Rossrs 21:11, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
          • I rented eyes-wide-shut last night (strictly for research) and there was definately no scene in it like the image here. Boobs and bum shots but not a full frontal -- Ian ≡ talk 00:32, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I found the image! The image is definitely not Nicole Kidman and is definitely copyright infringement. I've voted to remove the image but don't want to do so myself; possibly inappropriate as I found the link. --Yamla 00:47, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

I haven't found the time lately. But I assure you: I am working on this. I am sure none of you are suprised about what I have to say, but I have the solution to all of your problems ;-) Will post it in a few days if someone else doesn't by then. --Muchosucko 02:23, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
Just so long as you do not post another nude image here without first discussing it and getting consensus. But I'm sure you wouldn't do that... --Yamla 04:23, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Chistopher's removal of the old pic from the main site. That's legitimate. I am new to Wikipedia, but can you link me to the policy that says I have to clear it with everybody before inserting such a pic?--Muchosucko 02:26, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
You are now aware that any such image will be controversial. While you are welcome to add it you shouldn't be surprised if it is reverted. Discussing it on the talk page first would be simply a polite thing to do; e.g. when you haven't taken the screenshot yourself, it gives other contributors time to discover that the person depicted is in fact not even the subject of the article. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:10, 2005 August 23 (UTC)
I will be bold. The bizzare controversy around nekidness is not a problem. Reverts are OK, but I don't see why the default has to be no image rather than the default being yes image. --Muchosucko 07:34, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
In this case, I think that in practice the default will be no image simply by weight of numbers as I scan the talk page. If those who oppose the inclusion of the image are willing to revert your addition you will have a tough time keeping it up. (This, of course, is having not seen the image; it might be one everyone approves of.) Simply put, you have at most 3 reverts a day, and if there's two people opposing you they have up to 6. On the whole, I strongly recommend discussing potential additions on the talk page first to avoid a destructive and deplorable edit war. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:46, 2005 August 23 (UTC)
      • I think the article is faily current and informative. There is a photo there so that the reader can be informed of her appearance. What more information is going to be derived from the addition of photos, whether they are nudes, not, or whatever? I will be quite ready to revert any photo I think is extraneous.Amerindianarts 14:43, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, she was completely nude in "The Blue Room", but it was a stage production. I'm sure there would have been restrictions on photographs (I think the general public is prohibited from bringing in cameras). I would think that any photos that were allowed would be protected, and any that weren't would be illicit, or bootlegs, or whatever. In any event though, it seems the particular photo in question is a fraud, and should be deleted nonetheless.Amerindianarts 02:57, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
      • How does this work?? Anyone care for the honor??Amerindianarts 03:04, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
        • I have removed this from the article. The image itself will be deleted when its IFD period expires. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:39, 2005 August 22 (UTC)

Just passing through, so I thought I'd throw my now irrelevant comments into the past. I believe the "nude in front of a mirror" image was genuine, and from Billy Bathgate, a movie in which she was fully nude, but a movie that is largely forgotten, doesn't have its own article, and I don't believe is mentioned in her article outside of her filmography. Though I personally think it's nonsense to be worried about whether children are "exposed" to see nudity, but I can't see how this image would have been relevant enough. If she was particularly remembered for that scene from that movie, then it would be an appropriate picture, but it's otherwise just gratuitous. Cheers, Postdlf 03:24, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BMX Bandits image

I included a screencap from BMX Bandits, yet it was removed by Yamla, who claimed that there was already too many images. I included the image because every other image on the page is from her more recent career. I thought the BMX Bandits image (from 1983) provided a good example of her evolving career. I would like to add the image again, but want to give Yamla the opportunity to explain his/her reasoning. Cnwb 04:34, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I'd support putting that image back - it fits in well with the early career section and (IMO) doesn't overlaod the article with too many images. -- Ian ≡ talk 04:53, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
I would support reinserting the image.Amerindianarts 05:47, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Well, I still think there are would be far too many pictures. However, I rather like the idea of putting an earlier picture of Kidman on the page, particularly one with hair like that. Could we consider replacing an existing picture? --Yamla 14:47, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Is there a Wiki policy that can be referred to rather than an "I think"? An objective solution would be either a Wiki policy, or being outvoted. The current file sizes for the images on the page are pretty small. Amerindianarts 16:32, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I withdraw my objection. On numerous other pages I have edited, the rule (enforced by others) has been one image per article unless the image is specifically relevant to an area of the article. However, I can find no such recommendation in the Wikipedia guides so it would seem we can have as many pictures as we wish. The only limiting factor would be, obviously, that we want the article to feel appropriate. --Yamla 18:17, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
I agree that photos should be limited. I would have no objections to removing the promotional poster images for particular films. It is a matter of preference, but I prefer the natural photos over the "Posed" images in the promos. Amerindianarts 23:05, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Former Scientologists

As a reasonably knowledgeable critic of Scientology, I've never seen anything that actually nails down Kidman as ever having actually been a Scientologist herself, including Tilman Hausherr's very good Celebrities in Scientology FAQ. If anyone has anything solid, please include it and reinclude the category - David Gerard 16:59, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Specifically, here's the entry from Hausherr's FAQ:
Name:          Nicole "nic" Kidman
Profession:   actress
Status:       probably not a scientologist
Achievement:  wife of Tom Cruise, "Far and away", "Batman forever",
              Golden Globe for "To die for"
Sources:      She is frequenly mentioned as a scientologist, but in
                The Sydney Morning Herald's Good Weekend
                (a Saturday supplement magazine) Sat 1/2/97
                she says she is not a scientologist
              In LA Magazine 10/93 Tom Cruise suggests she is one
              The East Grinstead Observer of 30.8.2000 mentions that
              Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman are sending their children
              to the infamous Scientology "Greenfields School".
              But the New York Post 7.2.2001 said that they are going to school
              in Sydney.
- David Gerard 17:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I just heard a former scientologist say in an interview that Nicole was OT2 before she left scientology. Anyone have any more info on this. Also, more info on the reasons for her break-up with Cruise would be beneficial to the article. ^^^^ 17 February 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.26.30.48 (talk • contribs) .