Talk:Rachel Weisz/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Persona

Is it correct that she is Jewish? The main article states that her mother was Austrian Catholic? She is usually described as Jewish and seems to self-identify as Jewish. Did she convert??

What , maybe a parent or something. As for how Rachel identifies? She has referred to herself as "Jewish" a couple of times. I don't know if she's practicing or not - probably not all that much (see [1], where her comments make it seem like she doesn't practice Judaism all that much), but her fiance, director Darren Aronofsky, is also Jewish. Vulturell 05:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

• Is She Hungarian-Jewish immigrant? --Sheynhertz-Unbayg 13:40, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

If you read the biography, the first paragraph will make it clear that she is of course British. However, her parents were Austrian and Hungarian (and Jewish). <KF> 17:58, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

It should just be written that she is a Jewish Briton, she's not a real Hungarian or Austrian anyway.

Reference #6 includes a mention of her mother being "Half-Italian". Her mother is not Jewish, apparently, so she is not Jewish either, unless she converted. This woman is confused about her identity.174.102.212.191 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC).

Assuming that 86.26.0.25 is correct, then she obviously is by most measures. However, the "who is a Jew" question is religiously complex. Orthodox jews are matrilineal. For Reform jews, one parent is enough as long as you are raised in a jewish household. While the cases of reform or conservative jews not being recognized as being "really jewish" by orthodox rabbis are well known, the opposite is possible, too. A person raised catholic with a jewish maternal grandmother is a jew by orthodox standards, and a non-jew by reform standards. The question is complex and self-identification combined with identification by reliable sources is the only standard that an encyclopedia like Wikipedia can/should apply. 131.96.47.17 (talk) 19:45, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

There are/were Jews in Italy, perhaps the most famous being Amedeo Modigliani. All Hallow's (talk) 21:41, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The reason the half-italian part was not included is that the sentence is discussing religion. Religion and nationality are not co-extensive. However, it's also true that there are plenty of Catholics of Jewish origin. The reality is that Weisz's mother is Jewish, but also went to Catholic Boarding School after she emmigrated to England as a refugee during the holocaust (St Mary's School Cambridge). This can't be included since wikipedia operates on verifiability, not truth, and I can't find any online sources to support this trivial fact. The article is quite good already at relaying these ambiguities (that exist for all assimilated Viennese Jews - for Mahler etc) 86.26.0.25 (talk) 01:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

First, what does it matter what religion ANY actor is? I understand including is a historical one-liner for the actor, but this ongoing discussion is ridiculous. Also, it would be nice if someone would mention, if known, why she did not continue on with The Mummy series. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.109.156.253 (talk) 14:49, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I strongly agree. All the speculation about her background (and the different labels that can be attached to it) seems a little obsessive - especially in one of the first paragraphs of an article for a general audience. Feketekave (talk) 10:54, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't know why Jewish people (who comment in these threads) are obsessed with making sure anyone who maybe jewish, no matter how distant in their ancestry, has it known on their wiki page.

Her first big movie

She also starred in Chain Reaction in 1995, some movie about an aquirium yielding immense capabilities into converting energy using some strange physics indeed. Well, the movie also starred Keanu Reeves, so it should be worth mentioning. Tore Aurstad, Norway, Feb 27 2006.

Pronunciation

"Surname pronounced" is ambiguous. Letterman pronounced it "vice" when he hosted her, so that is at least her pronunciation of her chosen spelling, "Weisz". If the spelling wasn't changed, and/or if "vice" is precisely the pronunciation of that spelling by Hungarians, that would be worth saying. But better a precise statement of what we know, than be vague about how far back "the surname" has been spelled and/or pronounced as she does.
--Jerzy•t 06:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

"(surname pronounced [vaɪs] or "vice"; it means "White" in English)". surely not in English? Letstalk 11:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

As Weisz is a German name it would be pronounced similar to "vice", but without the "f" component of the "v". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.15.52.162 (talk) 19:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Weiß is the German word for white. Is Weisz a regional variant or an archaic form? It might be interesting to add to the article. BodvarBjarki (talk) 09:59, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I am Hungarian so I can help on the issue. We pronounce her surname as 'vice' and the way it is written is the Hungarian form of a german name. Many jewish people came to Hungary from Germany during the late 19th and early 20th century and after the settled there they changed the form of their names. The German Weiß written in a Hungarian form is Weisz, where the letters s and z next to each other are actually one letter the "sz" pronounced in english as 's'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoz007 (talk • contribs) 23:29, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Never referred to as "Vice" in her native land. It's "Weisz", pronounced as spelt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.173.122.43 (talk) 23:34, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The correct pronunciation (from the horses mouth) is vice. http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2009/05/rachel_weisz_is_going_to_start.html

---

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.96.251.100 (talk) 10:17, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Performing experience

Is it correct that she was in Footlights? She's not listed on http://www.footlights.org/past/past.html and http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Set/2851/intcam.htm suggests her main focus was a group called Cambridge Talking Tongues. Mpntod 14:07, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)

Images

Recently people have started replacing images of actors and actresses with other photos. I say "other" because it is certainly a matter of taste if they are "better". I consider such activity absolutely wasted time, especially if the new image has not been tagged in any way, as is the case with Rachel Weisz's photo. Think of all the time it takes to find a suitable picture without copyright problems, and two or more people doing the same job independently. This just means working against each other instead of working together and pooling resources. Please don't do it. For other examples, see Nicole Kidman, Audrey Hepburn, Elizabeth Hurley, and even Sylvia Saint, where the uploader commented, "Much nicer picture!". <KF> 22:02, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

Here we go again: A "more flattering photo" with the same file name was uploaded on September 8, 2005. It has no information on source or copyright status whatsoever. It certainly was not taken from http://www.actresspictures.com/ , which no longer exists. <KF> 11:32, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Eragon

I'm going to add Eragon to her list of movies, because the poster at http://www.gedweyignasia.com/gedwey_images/eragon_posternew.jpg has her name on the bottom. Likely as Saphira's voice. Any objection, just change it back.

Jewish Hollywood section

I've read the interview through a couple of times. I don't see how its worthy of a section in the article or even that is controversial at all - particularly as Weisz is Jewish. I don't see any accusations of anti-gentilism either. This is unnecessary controversy-mongering, in my opinion. Bwithh 01:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Added a balance tag. I recommend removal of this section completely. Wikipedia is not a gossip rag. Bwithh 01:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Have you looked at the Mel Gibson or Marlon Brando pages? Discussion about racism is a valid section in a star's wikipage.

You don't think these are criticisms of anti-gentilism: "He had a theory that all the executives think acting's a job for shiksas." Or "In some way acting is prostitution, and Hollywood Jews don't want their own women to participate"?

You must have a bias. You better be careful - someone might say you have 'an agenda'. It even happens to people who point out the undeniable! :)

Hello anonymous IP user. Thanks for the warning "to be careful", which I'll ignore. My only agenda is that I'm tired of people using Wikipedia as a celebrity muck-raking and gossip site. You have not demonstrated that there is a controversy about this issue. Without proof of this, this is original research to claim that this is an encyclopedically notable issue.. I'll give you a day to come up with external references to show that Weisz's remarks have attracted substantive controversy (i.e. not passing mentions, brief news articles or gossip columns) in the mainstream media. Otherwise, I'll be removing the section entirely under WP:BLP. If its necessary, I'll call a Request for Comment for broader discussion. In the meantime, don't remove the balance and OR tags please. Bwithh 03:41, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

• Well, another editor has gone ahead and removed the section entirely now, which is fine by me, though he/she should have commented as well. I'll be monitoring this article for any further edit warring over WP:BLP issuesBwithh 17:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

The WP:BLP withdrawal needs explaining. Having read the link, I can see no reason (and none has been offered) why claims of endemic racism within an idustry should not feature on a personality's page. Racism is an important issue. RW's statement is enequivocable. I shall re-post it if a sensible and consistent explanation for its invalidity is not forthcoming.

Age tag

Why did the age tag only change when I edited the page? Is there something wrong with the script? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.243.66.153 (talk) 19:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

No mention of Rachel's fondness for Elvis Presley?

He remains one of her biggest idols I believe. Albert Cheng 20:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

How many children?

She is obviously pregnant in the movie "The constant gardener" (the make up of a pregnancy is usually very unrealistic). I would say she was at least in her sixth month. The movie was released end of August 2005. Hence, the shooting took place around February 2005. The child she was pregnant with in the movie must have been born around May 2005. What happened to that child and who is the father? Mvb (talk) 22:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Year of birth

I notice that there seems to be regular disagreement over Rachel Weisz's year of birth. I tried to edit the page to confirm it was indeed 1970, referencing Companies House records for her company (Rachel Weisz Limited), of which she is a Director and as such her date of birth is officially recorded. However, when I did this, my edits were removed. How will this issue be resolved if corrections are simply removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.226.68 (talk) 03:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Your edit wasn't removed as far as I can see. The article now lists 1970 with your reference. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 04:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately the issue is still unresolved. There are reliable sources to support 1970 and 1971 as the birth year - and unfortunately Companies House records cannot be regarded as a definitive source for DOBs - mistakes can be made. The only source that can 'trump' the exisitng sources would be a birth certificate. So until evidence can be presented to prove definitively what the date of birth is - the two dates should remain. DrFrench (talk) 19:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The issue is not still unresolved- journalists are notorius for making errors with dates etc.- companies house would have to have evidence of the date of birth from a certificate and the bfi source has been checked against the GRO birth indexes and the GRO are the people that issue birth certificates. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 19:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Despite my initial reverts I would go with 1970 as the best referenced date. While IMDB, which lists 1971, is usually pretty accurate it isn't infallible and I prefer the BFI as more likely to be accurate. I've added a comment to try to prevent further changes. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

With respect, I can't agree. We had two citations, one from the BFI and one from The Guardian. Both are reputable sources and a citation from either one of them would normally be sufficient. With different information being quoted by two reputable sources I feel its appropriate (and in the spirit of WP:BLP) to cite both sources and let the reader draw his or her own conclusion. DrFrench (talk) 21:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't see the Guardian reference. Is there a URL? I'm not sure that the Guardian trumps BFI. However it probably is worth putting the alternative date as at least a footnote. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, I feel the BFI source is considerably more accurate than the Guardian newspaper. In writing the article the journalist almost certainly took the information from a secondary source, it wouldn't surprise me if it came from the incorrect IMDB page. Furthermore the companies house data would have had to have been varified and the information submitted by the individual themselves, so I see it highly unlikely that a mistake would have been made. I'd certainly go with the 1970 DoB. Thestealthmonkey (talk) 02:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Her birth was registered in Jan-Mar quarter of 1970. General Records Office Reference: Name: Rachel Hannah Weisz, mothers maiden name: Teich, District: Westminster, Vol: 5e, Page: 2432 Kizmiaz (talk) 18:26, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Weisz / Aronofsky page discrepancies

Residence

Darren Aronofsky's wikipedia page says that the couple reside in Brooklyn. This page says they reside in the East Village in Manhattan. Which page is correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kluv0008 (talk • contribs) 14:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Relationship

Weisz's page says her relationship with Aronofsky started in 2002. Aronofsky's page says 2001. Which is correct? --MikeUMA (talk) 04:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)