Jump to content

Talk:Charlize Theron/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

US in Lead Sentence

Who the heck keeps on reverting the lead sentence to remove all mention of the US? "Charlize Theron is a South African actress" gives the impression that she has worked as an actress in South Africa. This is misleading. She only started acting after moving to the US, and her entire career has been based in the US. The lead sentence should either state: "Charlize Theron is a South-African-born actress", or Charlize Theron is a "South African actress who works in the United States". It should not give the false impression that she has a South African acting career. FurrySings (talk) 10:06, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

It is stated in the very next sentence, so there is no "false impression" of anything, or whatever. Look at the discussion above. Nymf hideliho! 10:11, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
The nationality stated in the lead sentence is the nationality of the subject, not the nationality of the works they appear in. Yworo (talk) 15:34, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
It does not state in the next sentence that she has never worked as an actress in S. Africa. Which is, as I stated, very misleading. I'll fix that in the second sentence since you insist. FurrySings (talk) 14:03, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Nationality II

WP:OPENPARA is quite clear that the nationality of an individual is the citizenship which they held at the time they became notable. If a subject changed or added a citizenship after they became notable, we do not put it in the lead sentence, but rather later in the lead or in the article body itself. But thanks for playing. Yworo (talk) 03:33, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Hey Yworo. Thanks for the comments. Note that over a year ago you started the section above trying to address this question. If you read through it you'll note consensus seemed to be for "South African born American". I'm happy to discuss alternative wording, but you probably shouldn't unilaterally try to revert to the wording you supported in the previous discussion without demonstrating that consensus has changed.
On your WP:OPENPARA point; I think that's a good and relevant cite. But there are several potential issues here; 1) OPENPARA says the at the time they became notable rule applies in "most" cases. 2)OPENPARA is applied pretty sporadically across WP. 3) Theron's notability may have started in SA, but it now seems largely based in the US. Using both "South African" and "American" as a descriptor seems like a fair way to communicate that. NickCT (talk) 14:53, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Please see the discussion in progress at MoS Biographies. One thing we can simply not do to a living person is to relegate the country of their upbringing and identification which nationality they held at the time they became notable to a misleading phrase like "South African-born" which makes their association with their natal country seem incident or accidental. Yworo (talk) 17:16, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
You will also want to note that consensus can never override proper handling of BLP issues, which is what we have here. I am willing to compromise on the presentation of both nationalities, but only using the word "and", as any other presentation discounts the subject's country of upbringing and her strong identification as a South African national. Yworo (talk) 17:22, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Hey Yworo, thanks for the comments. Unfortunately we determine "proper handling of BLP issues" through consensus. If we didn't do that, there'd be a bunch of obnoxious little people trying to feel self-important by running around playing BLP police. Thank goodness that's not the case.
I'm not actually all the against "South African and American". It seems relatively fair and accurate. Here are a couple concerns though.
1) I think my chief complaint about "South African and American" is just that it sounds darn awkward. The problem is the "and". It's sorta rare that you use "and" in dual-national identifiers. For instance, it's "Mexican American", not "Mexican and American", or "Canadian American" not "Canadian and American". Is there another wording we can come up with that avoids the "and"? Obviously "South African American" wouldn't work.
2) Despite the fact that I'm for a compromise here, I'm a little concerned about changing consensus wording without more input. I'd prefer to do this by RfC. If we come up with some potential wordings, I'd be happy to set the RfC up. NickCT (talk) 13:35, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
If we actually follow what WP:OPENPARA says, we have no problem. It says to use the nationality held at the time the subject became notable. That was only South African. The intent of OPENPARA is that for most people, we list just one nationality. We also don't use "Mexican American" or "Canadian American" on articles because they are ambiguous. They are interpreted by many American readers as meaning a person born in America who has ancestors from Mexico or Canada. We can't use ambiguous terms on a BLP, thus the intent of WP:OPENPARA. I know what that intent is, I helped write it. You will also note that WP:BLP issues such as this are exempt from WP:3RR. If you think I am wrong about this, then start a conversation about it at WP:BLPN, but don't continue to reintroduce BLP issues into the article. Nowhere does OPENPARA say "list all of the subject's citizenships", it states very clearly, use the citizenship held at the time the subject became notable. It refers throughout to "nationality" in the singular, nowhere does it refer to "nationalities" in the plural. The intent is to choose the longest-standing nationality held at the time the subject became notable. Nationality has to do with the subject's personal national identification, not with the nationality of the works they appear in or how other people than themselves might want to classify them. Yworo (talk) 16:21, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
I sorta feel like you're not reading what I've written. I said I was happy with the compromise solution. I just wanted to see if we could reword it. And re "can't use ambiguous terms on a BLP" - If that's true we shouldn't use any national identifiers because national identifiers have an inherently ambiguous nature to them. NickCT (talk) 17:45, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
And I feel the same way. There's a discussion about this at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies#Nationality and the wording of OPENPARA and I can point you to the previous discussions in the archives at the same page which expressly explain the problem. Per WP:BLP, while there is an ongoing issue regarding a living person, we leave the contested material out until a resolution is reached. If you want to assert that Theron herself identifies as "South African-born American" or "South African American", you will need to provide a reference which quotes her so identifying, just as required for ethnicity in WP:BLPCAT. I do not see any reference in the article that supports the fact that she self-identifies in that manner. Yworo (talk) 20:18, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
You'll also find discussions about the problem with ambiguity, Wikipedia:Ambiguous words and Wikipedia:Please clarify. As to needing to source the national identification to the subject herself, see WP:BLPSOURCES and WP:BLPCAT and for the need to avoid partisanship or cultural appropriation (i.e. appropriation or "claiming" of an individual for reasons of misplaced American nationalism), see WP:BLPSTYLE which states, "Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subjects, and in some circumstances what the subjects have published about themselves." (emphasis added). Which of multiple nationalities a subject identifies with is left to the subject, just as is the sexual preference and ethnic identity of the subject. Yworo (talk) 20:45, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
@Yworo - When I respond to you point-by-point, that is an indication that I am listening and responding to your ideas. When you ignore what I'm saying to repeat your same idea over and over, that is an indication that you are not listening.
Here is my point-by-point response to your comments.
re "There's a discussion about this at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies#Nationality and the wording of OPENPARA" - Ummmm... It appears as though you started this discussion, and one other person commented in passing. Would you characterize that as "a discussion", or more of you ranting at no one?
re "If you want to assert that Theron herself identifies as "South African-born American" or "South African American"" - Ok. So stop. Breath. Let's think about this because I think we can find some common ground here. I definitely agree with you that "self-identification" is a big deal in situations such as this. Do we know what Theron self-identifies as? I mean, do you have a reference with Theron saying "I consider myself to South African. I don't think I'm american" or something of such nature? If you do, then I'll concede this whole debate.
"Which of multiple nationalities a subject identifies with is left to the subject" - Hmmm.. Again, do we know Theron identifies expressly as "South African". We could have avoided a great deal of this debate had you simply cited that to begin with.
"misplaced American nationalism" - I'm pretty far from an American nationalist FYI. I just think that given the fact Theron has 1) lived in the US since age 17 and 2) has spent the large majority of her professional career in the US, it's pretty fair to think she might be called "American". NickCT (talk) 13:30, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
I've been willing to compromise from the start, using the word "and", which is plain English and not at all "awkward" as you assert. Please provide a source that proves that any phrase "nationality1 and nationality2" is considered "awkward" by a majority of grammarians if you intend to continue that patently false assertion. You would seem to be edit warring over a personal opinion about "awkwardness", while I am striving for accuracy and the elimination of ambiguity. Yworo (talk) 15:03, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

There is only one editor reverting and one editor responding on this talk page. Only one editor seems to object to using the word "and". Therefore, that editor does not have any kind of consensus to continue reverting. Consensus has changed and I respectfully ask that the editor NictCT stop reverting unless he can show that there are other editors who strongly object to using "and", a common English conjunctive which is in no way awkward. You've got no support. Yworo (talk) 14:21, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

@Yworo - I asked you multiple times whether you had a source for what Theron identifies as. You didn't address that. Are you willing to admit that you are not either reading or simply not taking the time to respond to my comments?
re "plain English and not at all "awkward" as you assert" - Hey listen, I completely accept that assessing whether something is "good" English (i.e. not awkward English) is completely subjective. You may see something as being well-written whereas I might not. I guess my initial basis for suggesting this language was "awkward" was because I've never heard someone described as "South African and American" before. Americans who are also British are usually called "British Americans", not "British AND American". Americans who are also Austrian are called "Austrian Americans", not "Austrian AND American". Obviously, as I said earlier, calling someone a "South African American" probably isn't the right solution here. Can we think of another? If the answer is no, I'm not actually all that opposed to "South African and American", but I'd like to think about it. Maybe "American South African"?
re Consensus has changed - Yworo. With respect, you seem to like to imagine that your opinion is somehow consensus. You changed the initial consensus language. Per WP:BRD, I reverted and now you are obliged to discuss. Please cease battlegrounding and discuss. NickCT (talk) 13:32, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
No, you are now abusing BRD. Right now, there is no consensus. No other editors are coming to your support or even reverting me in the many hours before you respond. Only you. I've asked you to prove your claim that the use of the word "and" is considered awkward in this context. My first preference, follow the intent of OPENPARA and omit American entirely. It's that reason the the sentence detailing acquisition of American citizenship to the lead section was added - initially in chronological order in the lead which was at the end. My second choice is the word "and". As a student of linguistic, I know that language is infinitely generative, but I don't know of anything that's accurate that's not also more awkward than "and". Awkwardness is not completely subjective, which is why I asked you for sources for the awkwardness of "and". For example, there is broad agreement that a sentence like "There was in the pond a duck" is grammatical but very awkward. Garden path sentences that cause one to go back and re-parse are also generally considered to be awkward, for example, "They are pumping lemmings" forces one to go back and realize pumping is not being used as a verb. These judgements of awkwardness can be found in the literature. It's actually more likely that you will find complaints of awkwardness about the phrase "South African-born American" than for "South African and American". Despite the fact that you can point back at the page and show a point that at one time the former was consensus, I can point back to subsequent complaints about the wording which were completely ignored and are not being counted by you as post-consensus !votes at all. Shall we count up all the post-consensus complaints that I am trying to resolve? Plus me, against apparently only you. It is you who are mistaken, an editor who continues to insist on an old consensus when no other editor is inclined to oppose a minor edit in wording is the one who is editing disruptively. Even if you revert only once a day, without support, you are being disrupting. It I was bold, you reverted, I discussed. BRD is done. Now you either show that the consensus still exists, or chose to back down from continued disruption. It's up to you to propose an alternate wording which avoids the problem I've pointed out while being less awkward than "and". BRD does not grant editors any privilege except a single revert before discussion has started. Once discussion has started, BRD is no longer applicable. Nothing in BRD gives any editor the right to repeatedly revert another editor without support from other regular editors of the article. Yworo (talk) 15:13, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Self-identification as South African sourced

I've now sourced Theron's self-identification as South African. I also searched to find any example of her being quoted as saying "I am an American", "I am a South African American" and "I am a South African-born American". As far as I can tell, she has never said any such thing. Of course, I am perfectly willing to have "and American" added just so long as the editor who adds it back provides a citation as strong or stronger than the one I have provided for her South African self-identification. Please respect and observe our verifiability policy as well as the even stronger sourcing requirements of our biography of living persons policy. Yworo (talk) 17:56, 28 February 2013 (UTC

I put "charlize theron us citizenship" into Google and the first match was:
Charlize Theron: Glad To Be A U.S. Citizen
CBS News www.cbsnews.com/2100-207_162-3932852.html Feb 11, 2009
She was born in South Africa, but Oscar-winning actress Charlize Theron is happy to finally be a U.S. citizen. "You're stuck with me now," she ...
So as not to mislead readers (many of whom may not read past the lede), I believe that we should be referring to her US citizenship in the lede. Something like the "and" solution would be suitable.
GFHandel ♬  08:17, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
It is in the lead. The last sentence of the lead begins: "Theron became a US citizen in 2007..." Roger (talk) 08:51, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes, but it is obviously important enough to the subject to now warrant being elevated to be next to her birth citizenship (which is what this discussion is about). We are all entitled to our opinion here, and that's mine. GFHandel ♬  09:04, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the opinions and the source. I've added it. Hopefully with two cites, one for each nationality, no one will try to use such monstrosities as "South African-born American" again. It's not really fair either to the subject or to South Africa. Yworo (talk) 13:48, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
I have reverted the edit which clearly violated OPENPARA. Discussing this issue here in isolation is utterly pointless and futile as the issue relates to many articles, not only this one. The only legitimate way to change it is to FIRST change WP:OPENPARA. Roger (talk) 17:07, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

OPENPARA: "In most modern-day cases this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident, or if notable mainly for past events, the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable."

She is currently a South African *and* a US citizen, so mentioning both in the first para of the lead seems to be entirely in line with OPENPARA. In fact, if she had dropped the South African citizenship, only the US one would be mentioned in the opening para.

OPENPARA again, "Similarly, previous nationalities or the country of birth should not be mentioned in the opening sentence unless they are relevant to the subject's notability."

She has no previous nationality, because she currently is a citizen of both countries, apparently. (Hohum @) 17:48, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

She became notable when she won an Oscar - that was several years before she became a US citizen. "...the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable." Roger (talk) 18:08, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Indeed. But she is still notable, and of dual nationality. The specific exclusion in this *guideline* if for past nationalities - she has no past nationality, only current ones. (Hohum @) 18:17, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Passes torch to Roger for a while. I agree with him that just using the subject's primary and most longstanding citizenship under which they became notable most closely follows the intent of OPENPARA. However, I believe OPENPARA needs to be seriously reworded to convey its intent much better. Other editors can hardly be blamed for not understanding an intent that is so poorly described. I started a discussion Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies a few days back, but it doesn't seem to be getting much attention. Yworo (talk) 20:06, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Since there is so much disagreement and contention about this issue, I have removed the national descriptor. Once there is consensus about which version to use, something can be added -- but as long as there is edit-warring about it it should stay out. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:07, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

re Nomoskedasticity - Probably the right thing to do. I'm still a tad confused what all the fuss is about. Seems like Theron has claim to be both American and South African. Tad confused as to why we can't write the lead to reflect that. I think at this point, an WP:RFC is really the proper way to move forward. If anyone wants to second an RfC, I'll work one up. I'll get others to weigh in on the outline before launching it. NickCT (talk) 13:32, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
This issue has been the subject of a large pile of RFCs - all ending more or less inconclusively. I believe the only sane way out is to adress the matter at the MOS level - Theron is not the only notable person in the entire history of the known universe to have changed nationality, so please please please take this matter to the MOS. The only way it will ever be resolved is to change OPENPARA and related guidelines. Roger (talk) 13:39, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Please have a little more clarity in your description so as not to confuse others - she did not change nationality. She added a citizenship while retaining her original nationality. Completely different things. Yworo (talk) 16:13, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Adding a second nationality/citizenship is a type of change of nationality whichever way you slice it. My main point is that the issue needs to be discussed at the MOS level, as it affects more than just this one article. Roger (talk) 16:41, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
re Roger - To a certain point I agree. At the moment OPENPARA is terribly worded and difficult to apply; hence all this debate. We do need to rework policy. At the same time though Roger, I've been involved in countless ethnicity/race/nationality/sexuality debates of this nature, and I can tell you, there is always some clever person like you who says "Hey! Policy should be clearer on this point". As much as I agree, in practice these things are often resolved on individual talk pages. NickCT (talk) 17:50, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
This issue has been discussed here for almost as long as the article has existed and we are no closer to a resolution than we were back in 2005. I really am absolutely convinced that we need to edit the MOS to be more specific and excplicit about this issue. Even if by some miracle we manage to arrive at a local consensus it is inevitably fated to be temporary as the "slow burning war" between "arrogant American cultural imperialist scum" and "reactionary South African nationalist xenophobes" (Note: These are intended as humorous caricatures used to illustrate the point, I'm not actually labelling any past, present or future participants in the debate with these descriptions.) will unavoidably flare up again sooner rather than later. The ability to cite an explicit statement from the MOS which clearly and unambiguously provides a satisfactory and authortative solution for a situation like this, is IMHO the only lasting solution. Roger (talk) 18:19, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Again, I'd absolutely agree that MOS change is desirable here, I just think the possibility of it happening a next to zero. On the other hand, there is some possibility we could setup a well worded RfC that would demonstrate consensus. In generally, if consensus is pretty clear, RfCs can be effective at putting a matter to rest.
For the record I consider myself an "Arrogant South African-born American nationalist cultural xenophobe". NickCT (talk) 18:59, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
I've drafted an RfC. Take a look at it here. Unless anyone has serious objection to the wording I plan an launching the RfC imminently. NickCT (talk) 15:58, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

New Image of Charlize Theron in 2013

There's a new images of Charlize Theron in 2013:

  • (1)
    (1)
  • (2)
    (2)

I think you could replace the picture in infobox with that picture. These images better than the current image, in terms of colors and lighting and in the year 2013. --Oz Steps (talk) 21:54, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Better color and lighting? But the photographer doesn't know any better than to try to photograph someone while they are speaking (or something)? Sorry, frankly, they suck. Yworo (talk) 03:49, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Charlize Theron's Nationality?

Closed in favour of Option C. See "Closing summary" at bottom for reasoning Manning (talk) 09:04, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

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


A debate surrounding the way to describe Theron's nationality in this article's lead has been simmering on for some time.

Previous discussion regarding this issue can be seen in these sections -

African American
Re:African American
U.S. citizen
Nationality
German citizenship application
South African-American or African-American?
South African-born
Manual of Style on nationality
Application of WP:MOSBIO and WP:OPENPARA
US in Lead Sentence
Nationality II
Self-identification as South African sourced

A number of proposals for solutions have been put forward to solve this debate. Here are several which have been proposed.

Solution A - Describe Theron as "South African" only in the lead.
Solution B - Describe Theron as "American" only in the lead.
Solution C - Describe Theron as "South African and American" in the lead.
Solution D - Describe Theron as "South African-born American" in the lead.
Solution E - Do NOT mention Theron's nationality in the lead or infobox. Discuss it in the body of the article.
Solution F - Do NOT mention Theron's nationality in the lead. List "South African" in the infobox and discuss it in the body of the article.

Please weigh-in, indicating the solution(s) you support using the example format below. Include a brief explanation of your rationale. Or, alternatively, if you have some idea which hasn't previously been put forward, let us know!

Example format:

Thanks in advance for everyone's opinions/comments/suggestions!

Standard RfC Disclaimer - This RfC should not be construed as a vote rather than an attempt to measure consensus. As always let's keep the conversations civil.

  • Support C. Options A, B, and E are obviously not acceptable. D is not acceptable because it implies that she was always an American who just happend to have been born in South Africa - as if her parents were just visiting SA when she happened to be born. It could also imply that she became American early in life before achieving notability. Roger (talk) 19:45, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
An observation: It is unquestionable that she achieved notability (WP's definition of notability) when she was only a South African citizen (this fact must be in the lead). She is the first South African (and in fact African - meaning a citizen of any of the 50+ African countries) to win one of the major Oscars. (AFAIK the only other African Oscar winner was for something technical like lighting design). If one looks in isolation at her career only since she became American she would in fact not be WP notable, as she has not won a single sufficiently significant award as required by the notability standard for actors. US citizenship has been bad for her career! <joke!>
I have high hopes but unfortunately low expectations for this AFC. I'm afraid it's result will only "stick" for a short while until someone comes along to enforce "the letter of the law" in the form of (the unfortunately deeply flawed) MOSBIO & OPENPARA. Roger (talk) 19:45, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
What is the letter of the law? I just read those, and it doesn't say anything about national origin except not to mention it in the lead. It can still be mentioned in the infobox. Abductive (reasoning) 19:57, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Point 3 of WP:OPENPARA is the source of most of the conflict - specifically the phrase "the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable" (my emphasis). She was not a US citizen when she won the Oscar - the event that made her suffciently notable to cause this article to be written. This is the reason why I remain convinced that the only possible lasting solution for this issue is to fix OPENPARA. Roger (talk) 20:41, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
No, the lasting solution is to recognize just how jarring that sentence about her citizenship is in the lead. Abductive (reasoning) 22:51, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Support F This RFC was poorly formed, presenting Soln's A–D which all require ignoring long-standing consensus and a Solution E which correctly requires nationality to be left out of the lead, but incorrectly disallows it from the infobox. The "Examples" given on how to respond are written in a non-neutral way, so I have removed them. Abductive (reasoning) 20:03, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
re "This RFC was poorly formed" - Ah well. I try my best.
re "all require ignoring long-standing consensus" - And what was that long-standing consensus in your view? If there was a clear long-standing consensus, I'm a tad confused as to why there are many paragraphs of debate in the sections directly above.
The long-stading consensus on all other Wikipedia artices and at WP:MOSBIO, of course. Abductive (reasoning) 22:44, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
re "which correctly requires nationality to be left out of the lead, but incorrectly disallows it from the infobox" - You are free to suggest your own solution. I don't understand why you'd want to make it one thing in the lead, but another thing in the info box.
Because the lead is not the place to mention anything about ethnicity, natinality or switching citizenship. Abductive (reasoning) 22:44, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Isn't it? Whether or not it's a good thing, many people quickly identify people by their nationality (or in some cases, skin color). Mentioning said nationality seems to me to be one of the most pertinent facts about her. Why wouldn't we mention it in the lead? We do it for tons of people. (In fact, for many people, it's the very first thing the article says about them. (Simon Cowell is an English executive....) Jsharpminor (talk) 17:10, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
re "The "Examples" given on how to respond are written in a non-neutral way" - Examples restored! Please don't alter other's comments on talk pages. Apologies if you feel the "examples" are non-neutral. If you'd suggest a way to make them more neutral, I'd be happy to try and incorporate your suggestion. NickCT (talk) 20:35, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
This is laughable. Do not return such biased examples. There is no need for examples in RFCs anyway. Abductive (reasoning) 22:44, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Do you have an argument as to why they are biased? Look, I'm happy to try to change them to address whatever issue you seem to have with them, but having them there helps standardize peoples answers. Seriously though, don't edit them Wikipedia:TPO is pretty clear that that is a no no. NickCT (talk) 00:57, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
@Abductive - I accidently removed your reasoning F. I was going to re-add it, but I was a little confused by what you meant when you said "add it to the infobox". Add what to the infobox? We're trying to figure what the nationality should be. You can't say, "add the nationality to the info box", and not give an opinion on what the nationality should be. Very confusing. NickCT (talk) 22:04, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
At present the infobox nationality field says South African, and citizenship says when she became a US citizen. The lead does not and should not mention her becoming a US citizen, it is a minor issue. Abductive (reasoning) 22:41, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Ok. So I guess by "it" you mean "South African"? I've clarified that in your solution. NickCT (talk) 00:53, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Proposal F would make show her nationality as "South African" in the info box. I'm a little confused as to why you'd support calling her, "American" in the lead or "South African" in the info box. NickCT (talk) 02:05, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Because she is an actor in America (not an actor in another country), but a South African National. Although - one could argue putting citizenship as South Africa and United States - check out another actor in a similar status - Arnold Schwarzenegger has both countries of Citizenship in the info-box.Patriot1010 (talk) 02:18, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Ah, ok. So I guess you really support B AND F, not B OR F? NickCT (talk) 15:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Indeed, thank you, I will clarify my post from Support B, "Actor," then F to simply B and F. Patriot1010 (talk) 22:17, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Support C. No matter what we choose, there will probably be countless editors boldly changing the lead to their preferred style. C, as the compromise choice, is most likely to avoid these minor edit wars. A comment should probably be inserted into the lead, noting the consensus, if such exists. It won't stop opinionated editors, but it will give pause to those who are genuinely trying to be helpful. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:40, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Support D - Seems most informative to readers. D and C are both okay, but C doesn't read very well, and D would paint a fuller picture for readers that limit themselves to the lead. --Noleander (talk) 09:39, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Comment - Option D is unacceptable because it denies everything notable that she did while she was only South African - like winning an Oscar, which is the entire reason why this article is even allowed to exist. In fact if her career had only started the day she became American she would not be sufficiently notable for an article at all. It also denies that she still is South African. Roger (talk) 11:57, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Support A. I like the way it reads now (South African in the lead and citizenship in the info box). She became notable as a South African and it's not even close as to whether or not she was an American citizen at the point of becoming notable (she was definitely not). If at all necessary, talk of her American citizenship should happen in the body of the article. RogrMexico (talk) 21:34, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Support D and F. Describe Theron as "South African-born American" in the lead. List "South African" in the infobox and discuss it in the body of the article. KhabarNegar (talk) 09:20, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support C or D. A looks acceptable, but is insidiously wrong. B seems rather untenable a position, per RogrMexico, Dodger67, and others. E and F suggest throwing out one of the most pertinent facts about a person -- whether or not it's objectively relevant, it's true that most people think that it is, to the point that it's often the very first thing a Wikipedia article says about them besides their birth/death dates. Jsharpminor (talk) 17:14, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Looking now at the facts behind A, I see that this lady basically built her career as an American resident. True, she was only naturalized as an American in 2007, but a few facts: 1) You can only be naturalized after living here for several years already. 2) Her main roles occurred after she emigrated to the United States. True, it was before she was naturalized; but her Oscar-award-winning performances happened after she moved to the US. Saying that her citizenship is bad for her career, even as a joke, is misleading at best. Jsharpminor (talk) 17:20, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support D. Wording expresses reality and this info should definitely be presented in the lead section of this article. Cheers! RichardMills65 (talk) 16:24, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Prefer A but I would also tolerate C, D or E. She identifies herself as a South African rather than an American, so it would make sense to list her as a South African actress. Find interviews and use them to support her national identity. Maybe it would be a good idea to look at the pages of other popular South Africans who have found success outside their country of birth such as Neill Blomkamp or Johnny Clegg. Aleksandar Bulovic' (talk) 11:51, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
re "She identifies herself as a South African" - Can you support that with a recent reference? I looked for something post-2007 with Theron saying "I consider myself South African", and came up empty handed. If you can show that Theron recently explicitly identified as South African, that might change the debate. NickCT (talk) 12:18, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
I cannot find anything post 2007 saying she identifies as South African, but on the other hand, I have difficulty finding anything at all where she identifies as an American... Aleksandar Bulovic' (talk) 12:30, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
I think that observation would push me towards solution E. NickCT (talk) 12:49, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
  • "E is best" (got a random invite from the RFC bot) "A" and "B" violate guidelines (the lead shold summarize the article, and so it should not contain things which are not in the article. Since she has dual citizenship, any short characterization by nationality is not very informative. Alternatively, explain it a bit in the lead (e.g. She was originally from South Africa, and now holds US and South African dual citizenship." instead of doing the problematic act of trying to condense it into an adjective or characterization. North8000 (talk) 20:53, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
    I don't understand how A would violate guidelines. Her recenty acquired American citizenship is mentioned a couple of sentences later, in the lede. Nymf talk to me 18:30, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
    I was speaking generally. Whenever you say "put XXXX only in the lead", that means that XXXX is only in the lead and not in the body of the article, and the guideline is that the lead should summarize what is in the body of the article. These are just my thoughts; it would not bother me the tiniest bit if others do not agree or this goes counter to them. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:36, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
    This RFC actually only refers to the first sentence in the lede when it says "describe as X/X only". It does not mean that we are going to leave anything out of the body of the article. Nymf talk to me 06:07, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • D is the obvious choice, and is consistent with other American actors/actresses who were originally from other countries. For example, see the page on Desi Arnaz, who came to the US when he was 18, about the same age as Theron when she came to the US. About those who say that "she was South African when she became notable", note that she became notable as an actress in the American film industry, while she had South African citizenship. She was not an actress when she was in South Africa, and never acted in any South African movies. She became notable as an American actress. Calling her a "South African actress" is completely misleading. FurrySings (talk) 10:12, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
    She did not become an American citizen until late in her career, her most notable achievement, the Oscar, happened before she became American. By your logic all American actors who have ever worked on a film shot in Fooistan should be called Fooistanian actors. Working in Hollywood does not make someone automagically become an American. This !vote and others like it are perfect examples of the American cultural imperialism that I've argued against in previous rounds of this discussion. Take a look at any of the British or Canadian actors who have worked in Hollywood. The "nationality" of the movie does not rub off on everyone who had a part in making it - that notion is patently absurd. Until 2007 Theron was a South African actress working in the US - since 2007 she is a South African and American actress. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:53, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Looks like I came to this discussion to late, the subject of this RfC carries dual citizenship. If there is contention in the lead wording, perhaps it is best to exclude it entirely, and go into the subject later in the article. I would support solutions C, D, or E.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:05, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Badly timed archiving?

I have reverted the "conveniently timed" archiving of most of the content of this page. This page has never before been archived but it is suddenly archived on the same day that this RFC is started? I'm sorry but it looks like an attempt to influence the RFC. Roger (talk) 09:06, 9 March 2013 (UTC) Redacted - see below Roger (talk) 12:01, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry. Exactly how is archiving the talk page an attempt to "influence the RFC"? As you may have noticed, the talk page was getting a tad lengthy. If you were really trying to assume good faith, don't you think you would assume my archiving was an attempt to address the page length? Really Roger. You're assuming bad faith, and more than that, you're assuming bad faith with essentially no basis to do so. NickCT (talk) 21:09, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
The archive removed a large amount of material to do with this RfC (material that would allow editors commenting to catch up with the debate). I'm not going to level bad faith claims, but do you believe it was the right thing to do to remove historical information relating to this RfC – during this RfC? Anyhow, all back to normal (but perhaps the archive could wait until the conclusion?). GFHandel ♬  21:31, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
I have to note that it would have been relatively easy to fix the links in the RfC to point to the archives rather than simply revert the automated archiving itself. Yworo (talk) 23:58, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
@GFHandel - Ok, so maybe I inadvertantly removed a "large amount of material to do with this RfC" when I archived (for which I apologize), but to suggest I did that because I was maliciously trying to hide information is grossly speculative, and assumes I must be really really stupid as an archive isn't a particularly inconspicuous place to bury info. Frankly, I think Roger could apologize for the baseless accusation he's made. NickCT (talk) 05:26, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
I have moderated my earlier post. I retract the allegation of bad faith, but IMHO it was definitely not a good idea. Due process must not only be done, it must be seen to be done. I must also place on record my concern about the unusually short period allowed for comment and input into the drafting of the RFC. Less than three hours passed between the anouncement of the existence of the draft inviting input from others and the posting of the RFC as a fait accompli. The more usual period allowed for such input is on the order of three days and certainly not less than one full day. Roger (talk) 12:01, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Ok. Well thanks for moderating your post. Regarding the "usual period", I realize I didn't wait very long, but I'd been tossing the idea of an RfC around for a couple days, so I don't think this was really a "bolt from the blue". Anyways, do you think the RfC was crafted in a "fair and balanced" way, or do you have complaints about its structure? NickCT (talk) 19:02, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
(Uninvolved editor comment.) For what it's worth, editors responding to RFCs do know where the archives are located. I recommend never manually archiving, however, since the bots do a good job of it and the settings can be changed depending on talk page volume. Andrew327 19:19, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
@Andrew - For the record, I didn't manually archive. I setup the automated archive. NickCT (talk) 11:57, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

RfC Close

This RfC has been around for a while now, I'd like to ask that it be closed. By my reading, options C and D seemed to garner the most support, with F in third.

I see C and D as being relatively similar in that they both call for American and South African to be called out in the lead. I'd be happy if either of those were the outcome of this RfC. NickCT (talk) 12:28, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Structural problem and solution

There is a structural problem in the RFC in that each choice contains a particular combination of answers to three or four questions. As a remedy, may I suggest that the closing attempt to determine consensus on these separate questions. (and I think that it is implicit that her nationality be covered at least in sentences in the body of the article)

  1. Should her nationality be covered in the lead?
  2. Should her nationality be covered in the info box (could only be done if the answer to #3 is "yes") ?
  3. Should her nationality be summarized anywhere into a few-word description? (vs. only sentences which tell the whole story)
  4. If the answer to #3 is "yes", what should the wording of that summary be?

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:43, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I partially take North's point. The RfC might have been more clear if it had broken down in several questions; however, I would point out re "Should her nationality be covered in the lead?" that if a respondent felt her nationality shouldn't be covered in the lead, they could have always supported E. NickCT (talk) 13:12, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes. And also make comments, as these aren't a vote. I guess I was recommending to, in this case, for the closer to look particularly close at the comments, and keep in mind that there area a few different questions in play here. North8000 (talk) 14:19, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Closing summary

I am closing this RFC in favour of Option C (Describe Theron as "South African and American" in the lead.)

I have two solid reasons (and one slightly flaky reason) for this. Firstly, that is the apparent consensus position. D is a close second, but it possibly implies Theron is no longer a South African citizen, which is misleading (if interpreted as such). Hence on balance, C is the better choice.

Secondly, it is the option most consistent with the MOS-BIO. For reference this reads: Context (location, nationality, or ethnicity) - In most modern-day cases this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident, or if notable mainly for past events, the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable.

Theron was indisputably a South African citizen (exclusively) when she became notable, so it is inaccurate to describe her solely as an American.

Conversely, let us pretend that Theron had no career prior to her acquiring US Citizenship. Her body of work since then would have clearly earned her notability entirely on its own merits (eg. her 2011 Golden globe nomination). Hence the "notable mainly for past events" element does not apply and it would inaccurate to describe her exclusively as South African.

So conveniently, my second reason leads me directly to the original consensus position anyway.

The final (flaky) reason is that Theron apparently self-identifies as such. As per the Nicole Kidman dispute of *many* years ago, the self-identification of an individual is a valid factor in deciding such matters. (This reason is flaky because I have not personally verified that Theron actually self-identifies this way.)

Finally - I have deliberately not addressed the structural questions raised by North8000. No disrespect is intended, the questions are both valid and of interest. I did not address them because I felt it was just too far beyond the remit of a closing admin. Such a discussion should be held in a wider context than the article of a single actress. Manning (talk) 09:04, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

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

Drawing in the article

There is a single-purpose account that insists on adding a drawing in the article (with doubtful copyright, to boot), and has done so tree times now (1, 2, 3). The user claims that it "illustrates her gay activism". I disagree. It is a drawing with doubtful copyright, nothing more. What do others think? Nymf talk to me 18:10, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

In fact, I believe it is the person who drew picture himself that keeps adding it. Looking at Commons, the user named "Juanbastos" (Juan Bastos, the artist who drew the illustrations) uploaded this image at 18:33. 17 minutes later, at 18:50, Thparry (the single-purpose account, only adding drawings by Juan Bastos), adds it to an article. Nymf talk to me 18:20, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
I love it random folks try to upload their own bad artwork to WP. Strikes me as a pretty sad form of self-promotion. NickCT (talk) 19:04, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
And of course, as his own work, he has the right to license it was he will. If he's uploaded it to the Commons, it is available for our use, it's on the cover of a magazine notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. I see no problem with including it on this article. Yworo (talk) 19:06, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Few problems with that. 1. Wikipedia is not a place for self-promotion. Edit warring, pushing whatever content that you have authored, is even worse. 2. We have no way of knowing if it based on a copyrighted photograph, which would make the drawing a copyright violation. 3. (re: the magazine part) It is a drawing, and not the cover itself. Nymf talk to me 19:22, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Also, I am not so sure that the magazine is notable, either. Even that article is self-promotion, created by the magazine's founder here. Zero reliable sources, too. Considering that the notability of it was questioned 5 years ago, and nothing has been done about it, I believe an AfD may be in order for that article. Nymf talk to me 19:34, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
If the article is nominated and deleted, then I'd agree that the drawing should be removed. I have no opinion on whether the magazine is notable and will leave that decision to LGBT editors who would have some clue about it. Yworo (talk) 19:37, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
A work usually belongs to the entity that commissioned it, not the artist, unless the commissioning contract specifies otherwise. Look at the description on the file page - thus the copyright of this image is not clear at all. Roger (talk) 19:46, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
No, actually authors and artists usually retain their copyright and only license it for use. That license may be exclusive for some period of time for major works such as books, but not typically for magazine content. Yworo (talk) 19:52, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

General American pronunciation of her name

The article says this: "General American pronunciation: /ʃɑrˈliːs ˈθɛrən/." I have NEVER heard an American pronounce her surname like that. It's always pronounced with the accent on the second syllable. The final consonant in her first name is generally voiced, too. A more accurate representation would be /ʃɑrˈliːz θəˈrɑn/.--63.138.95.34 (talk) 06:28, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

It's how she pronounces her name in English. --ɬaɬ (talk) 19:16, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Prominence of father's death

What factors are weighed in determining how prominently the killing of her father should be placed? Is it an obscurity in the media? Neutralphrasing (talk) 04:39, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

@Neutralphrasing - I've just scanned over it, and it the prominence strikes me as reasonable. Generally parents only receive a few sentences in an "Early Life" section. I realize Theron's father's situation was somewhat notable, but it seems as though the couple sentences covering him provide due coverage. NickCT (talk) 13:17, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Charlize Theron

She didn't step foot in the US until she was 18. There's many actors/actresses that have lived in the US for decades yet are still by and large considered "british, austrailian" etc. There's no consistency with the wikipedia if you were to list that. Saying she has obtained american citizenship is fine, but this whole ideology that she's both south african and american is not consistent. I know actors that started acting back in the 30s and 40s (golden era hollywood) that spent most of their lives int he US and had citizenship yet were never called "american actresses" in their wikis. SubzeroMK2 (talk) 06:11, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Time

All this squabbling about her nationality is a waste of time. The legal and photographic situation are obvious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.210.234.23 (talk) 11:01, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

director?!

she's not a director! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.158.78.14 (talk) 12:09, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I've removed this from the article. —Bruce1eetalk 13:13, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Sean Penn & Charlize Theron Engaged

After less than a year of dating, Sean Penn reportedly popped the question to Charlize Theron. http://hollywoodlife.com/2014/12/29/sean-penn-charlize-theron-engaged-getting-married/ 95.94.52.138 (talk) 02:34, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay, but we would need a reliable source to include it and reference it. The link you provided is to a Hollywood Gossip site. Need something more like the LA Times or another non-tabloid-like gossip site. For more clarity on what's needed, please see WP:REF. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:37, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Early films in the late 1990s

The wording "early films in the late 1990s" in the lede seems strange to me. What is it supposed to mean? "In the late 1990s, she starred in early films"? "Early on [in her career], she starred in the late 1990s films ...."?

It seems unnecessary to me to try and force both time expressions into the same sentence in this way. Why not just say "Early on in her career, she starred in the films ..." or "In the late 1990s, she starred the films ..."? It might even be better to say "She starred in films such as..." instead of "She starred in the films..." - Marchjuly (talk) 06:43, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Nationality redux

I can understand the need to put that she has citizenship in the US, but many british actors have citizenship int he US yet are not defined as a "american" nationality. I'm still not comfortable as describing her as both. There are many contraindicates for this compared to other wikipedias of foreign born actors. I think her nationality should stay south african. that's where she grew up. EricBJ099 (talk) 02:42, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

That results in endless edit wars back and forth between "South African" and "American" and even "African-American". Check the edit history. This is better. Skyerise (talk) 02:49, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I just notice many british actors who were botn and grew up in the UK usually just say UK actor. I just don't see why Theron is some sort of exception. She did grow up in South Africa. I guess my reason is consistency with how it is with many other actors. Thanks again for the response. EricBJ099 (talk) 02:52, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

It's just the the edit-warring on this particular article is much more intense than on the British folk. Technically, what we use is the nationality held at the time the subject became notable. See WP:OPENPARA. Skyerise (talk) 02:56, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Entering Sean Penn in box

I know Wikipedia is quite a bit slower than the media on this, but we can put Sean Penn in the box as her former partner, underneath Townsend, right?--A21sauce (talk) 17:30, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 7 external links on Charlize Theron. 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 17:53, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Moved web series to filmography page

I forgot to make a note on the edit, sorry the formatting/references might be wrong I don't edit regularly but this seemed obvious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.22.182.16 (talk) 11:27, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Pronunciation in Afrikaans

Afrikaans: [ʃɐrˈlis trɔn]

"Theron" is an Occitan surname (originally spelled Théron) pronounced in Afrikaans as [tron].

So, why are there two pronunciations of her surname in this article? Which is correct? --ɬaɬ (talk) 19:16, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

The correct South African English pronunciation is the same as the latter part of the word "electron" in English. In Afrikaans the vowel changes to the one in the English "paw", "saw", "oar". Unfortunately I have no idea what the correct IPA is for the vowels. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:31, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
I think this video on https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBJHC2pdTqs&t=49s is more clear and accurate on [trɔn] while the CNN sounds like [θrɔn]. --TX55TALK 16:01, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
More than one version is possible in Afrikaans.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Charlize_Theron/Archive_3&oldid=1136606519"