Talk:Nicole Kidman/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

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)

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)

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.

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)

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)

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) .

chanel No5 replaced

thats not a fact still just a rumor no one has said that adurey is the face of chanel yet at all untill they do its rumor shes doing the chanel bio film but so far not that —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.22.206.205 (talk) 04:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Career Achievement

Kidman is known to make more Bombs (of the Box office kind) than Hamas and Hizbullah put together! Her films are considered real stinkers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.111.132.242 (talk) 13:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Kidman04.jpg

The photo at the top of Wikipedia's page about Nicole Kidman may not be of Nicole Kidman. Although it has a resemblance to Nicole Kidman it is clearly not Nicole Kidman. The colour of the eyes is wrong to begin with, Nicole Kidamn has blue eye this picture has dark brown. If any one has an actual photo of Nicole Kidman could you please update the photo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.170.225.88 (talk) 13:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

American Born

she is the most wonderful actress in the world!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.29.1.176 (talk) 22:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to change American born Australian actress, to Australian-American actress, as she was born in the United States, which makes her a US citizen, although i believe she has dual citizenship. Mac Domhnaill 03:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

No, she was just born there while her parents were there breifly. That would be like claiming Patric Mcgoonan was an American because he was there. She was only born there for a short time and easily could have been born in Australia. She has always called herself an Australian and never once called herself an American. She is not American. It would be like calling Olivia Mary de Havilland Japanese because she was born there. You can call her American born, but not an American. --unsigned comments from Sliat 1981 (talk)

Actually, if you check you will find that she didn't move to Australia until she was four. --Yamla 21:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

She has never ever once refered herslef as an American. I know you'd like to claim her as one of your own, but face facts. She's Australian, NOT American.

The facts are she is an Academy awarding winning actress, born in the US, lived here until she was four, and now has dual citizenship and residences in both countries. These are the facts, which is what we deal with here at Wiki. Not supposition. If you have a reputable source (most ezines and mags are not reputable) stating she is in fact Australian,then cite your source. Reference in the article to her being "Australian" needs to cited. If you state she is, you need to cite it. Lack of reference to her being either does not. User:Sliat 1981 has continually disrupted the editing process despite the history of this article and the consensus. Continual disruption means they should be taken to task. The only claim being made is by User:Sliat 1981, and stating dual citizenship does not make the claim, as this user suggests ("you'd like to claim her as one of your own", as stated above), that she is an "American". The facts are stated in dual citizenship. Amerindianarts 17:08, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

But how do you tell her nationality? How do you tell nationality while we're at it? In one country it's the country of birth, in another it's heritage and in some others it's the citizenship. Who's right? I'm Israeli even though I wasn't born here. That's how I feel and that's how it's considered here. Anyway, her nationality should be what she said it is. Not anything else. Northern 12:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Australia does not recognise dual citizenship like the . USA or New Zealand You can be Australian by birth or Australian by naturalisation. For the purposes of this article it is may be more correct to refer to her as an American-Australian (naturalised Australian of American ancestry) Proberton 05:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Since April 2002 Australia does recognise dual citizenship - see Australian citizenship#Dual Citizenship. -- JackofOz 05:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The US does not recognize dual citizenship. "A U.S. citizen may acquire foreign citizenship by marriage, or a person naturalized as a U.S. citizen may not lose the citizenship of the country of birth.U.S. law does not mention dual nationality or require a person to choose one citizenship or another. Also, a person who is automatically granted another citizenship does not risk losing U.S. citizenship. However, a person who acquires a foreign citizenship by applying for it may lose U.S. citizenship. In order to lose U.S. citizenship, the law requires that the person must apply for the foreign citizenship voluntarily, by free choice, and with the intention to give up U.S. citizenship." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bullydog2 (talk • contribs) 03:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, she was born an Australian citizen because her parents had Australian citizenship. She was also born an American citizen because she was born in Hawaii. She has been a dual American and Australian citizen from birth, and naturalisation never had anything to do with it. But she considers herself Australian first and foremost, as does the rest of the world. -- JackofOz 05:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

you are all incorrect, both the US and Australia recognise duel citizenship, please check the staste departments of both. I have dual citizenship, Uk and USA ( holding passports of both). I have friends that are Spanish and Australian...jackofoz is correct, nationisation was never an issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.64.176.190 (talk) 09:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

gay icon again

Why has this article been put in Category:Gay icons, again? The word "gay" and "icon" do not appear anywhere in the article. There is no text to support this claim. There should be a quote of somebody somewhere saying Kidman is a "gay icon". Wikipedia should not be a publisher of original opinion. Also, please don't respond by citing sources here. If sources exist, please put them into the actual article. Until the sources are included, this article is going against verifiability policy. If it's important to say she is a gay icon, then its important to actually say it in the body of the article. Also note, being a gay icon, means more then having some gay fans (anybody with a couple dozen fans, probably has gay fans, after all). --Rob 07:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory

One thing that I feel should be mentioned would be the fact that she is a verified XY female. Thats the reason why her children are adopted btw, she is infertile and doesnt have a uterus/ovaries. 67.182.22.63 23:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, right. Please stop vandalising Wikipedia with your insane theories. That's what blogs are for.--Yamla 00:32, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

It is not an insane theory. XY female are such because they are biologically male but lack a functional gene for testosterone receptors in various organs. They are physiologically no different from any normal woman, other than the fact that they do not have a functioning reproductive system. Some people believe quite firmly that some well-known people such as Nicole Kidman or Jamie Lee Curtis are in fact, such XY females. Putting a vandalism tag on my comment page for putting forth a theory on a talk page is a bit over the top isnt it? 67.182.22.63 01:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Please provide a citation that verifies this "fact". Also, please provide some explanation on how Ms. Kidman could become pregnant if she is in fact a verified XY female. I really do not think the vandalism tags were unwarranted here. --Yamla 01:54, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

The wikipedia article on XY Female states that such a person can become pregnant via embryo implantation. I wholehearted agree that a reliable reference would be needed for this theory to be included in the article of course. Gomez2002 (talk) 12:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

There are two related syndromes that cause geneticaly normal MALES to appear as female. One is where the receptors do not function. The other is where they do function, but the body lacks an enzyme necessary to utilse the androgen. Either way, the body has a blind vagina and takes on a degree of female secondary sexual characteristics at puberty. However they are MEN who appear as women, as there is no such thing as an "XY female." They have to appear as women because there is no way to make their body respond to any form of masculinisation whatsoever. JBDay 23:56, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I resisted commenting on this earlier. Now it's 3 am and I'm punchy so... I guess Keith has cleared that Urban myth up. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

:very clever ;) Proberton (talk) 06:12, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

?????

BMX Bandits is probably her best movie to date as it required little or no acting talent

-S

• If this is an expert opinion then you would think the writer would have the balls to sign their name.Amerindianarts 04:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Wedding paragraph

The paragraph about her wedding with Keith Urban contains personal remarks and conversational style. Needless to say, it is - sporadically - not well-written. Also, who cares enough for ALL the details of her wedding? The paragraph provides way too many information and it is far larger in comparison to other paragraphs that contain more interesting and vital information. It should contain less information. I wonder how the author doesn't mention her underwear brand (worn especially for the wedding), must have slipped him/her! I seriously think her acting work and her life with Tom Cruise (if we need to consider some "personal life" information) are far more important as it is, than the lengthy description of her wedding. Some people just maniacally write down huge amounts of very recent information, as if Wikipedia is E!News or something.

Xanthi22 21:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• You have got that right. Too many star-gazers out there in Wikiland thinking these celeb articles are their big chance to write a gossip column. The fact that they were married in Sidney is sufficient. The rest is unencyclopedic and nothing more than idle chit-chat. Amerindianarts 23:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • But at least it used E!Online and People Magazine as reputable references! ;) I edited a week ago to 'In 2006 Kidman married Keith Urban' but it was revereted. Maybe I'll try again soon... --Steve 23:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

• • • Doesn't matter. The edit was poorly written and the info was not encyclopedic. This is an encyclopedia format, not an E-news or People magazine. The fact that they were married is sufficient for an encyclopedia format, the rest is not. Any future edits that are not encyclopedic (meaning they don't conform to Wiki policy) will be edited out. Amerindianarts 00:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

You missed my sarcasm of E!Online and People as reputable sources! I've edited the personal life section down to the basic facts. --Steve 00:25, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

American Debut

Dead Calm was a Warner Bros film, directed by Philip Noyce, so how can the article talk about Days of Thunder as her American debut? --Steve 00:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Jewish ancestry?

According to the NNDB, her father is of Jewish ancestry?[1] Is that true? I've never seen any reliable sources for it. It could or probably is more NNDB crap, but if anyone knows for sure.... Mad Jack 07:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC) Nope. She does not pray to Moses.

not impossible as there has been significant Jewish immigration to Australia. Arniep 03:40, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

she is pro israel that is for sure--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 13:45, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Whatever the case, "Jewish blood" does not read well and it should also not be in the header imho. It should be under early life, family background or the like if mentioned at all. In the past I would have removed this unless it could be clearly established by numerous reliable sources. I will not edit this now however.--Tom 21:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Quite correct. It's a weird mistake for the NNDB to make. Not because they're reliable or anything like that - they've made a boatload of mistakes. It's just that they usually copy other peoples' mistakes and not make up their own ones. Anyway, I was the one who added the info currently in the article (i.e. her mother's Scottish ancestry, etc.) from a book bio of Kidman. I couldn't find anything else. If anyone has a reliable source for any other ancestry, great. If not, not. As for being pro-Israel, a ton of people who are not Jewish at all are pro-Israel, including half the people who signed the petition or letter that Kidman did in August. Mad Jack 06:51, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

'Hollywood' tends to know on which side their bread is buttered! And I removed the sentence from the lead until a citation that Nicole Kidman herself identifies in any way. And then it can go in the body somewhere. --Steve _(Slf67) ^talk 08:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Australian/American

I think this article should be locked until mediation...etc sorts out this issue over if she is to be listed as Australian or American.

But here is some food for thought - Russell Crowe is listed as "New Zealand-Australian film actor" --Mikecraig 01:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The same is said of country singer Keith Urban. Either American or Australian makes a claim that is not really lead paragraph material, but if she considers herself as Australian it can be intergrated in the main body where her dual nationality is again mentioned. Amerindianarts 03:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

There are always poor articles that can be used as evidence for most failings of Wikipedia ;) However, in this case, Kidman is a dual national, and the article lists her nationalities. That is encyclopaedic and those are the facts. Describing her as Australian without any citation is against WP:BLP. Most Autralians see her as a fellow Australian, as they (cautiously) embrace anyone who has made in big in the US, but the fact she holds a US passport is probably unknown to most. --Steve 23:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's true of some, but not of Kidman, who was enthusiastically embraced long before she embarked upon a US career. She was born to an Australian family, temporarily living in the US when she was born and lived for her first four years, and she was raised in Australia, and began her career in Australia. It's no stretch of the imagination that she would identify as Australian, despite the circumstance of her birth. Would "American-born Australian actress" work? The dual nationality situation is mentioned, and this provides further clarification. As User:Amerindianarts noted, her self-identity can be integrated into the main article (with a source backing up her own viewpoint as an Australian.) It shouldn't be too hard to find a quote/source where Kidman explains how she views herself and this could also be included. Someone else pointed out that Olivia de Havilland was born in Japan, but is not described as a Japanese actress. This is a similar situation. Rossrs 23:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Without reverting some bad revision on a protected page, I have to note, that "Australian" must be taken out. If Nicole Kidman holds dual citizenship, then she is not simply Australian. Putting Australian-American at the beginning of the article is additionally confusing. Saying that she believes herself Australian is not enough. You have to back it up with documentation. I would, however, be surprised if Ms. Kidman were to publically renounce an American citizenship, as it the United States where most of her bread is buttered. Her publicist has probably advised her against it. Bastiq▼e ^demandez 02:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Good points.Amerindianarts 02:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the protection on this article. The use of the term Australian in the opening sentence must be sourced with clear proof of Kidman's self-identification as Australian. The Request for Mediation has seemingly died, however, it may not have been appropriate to begin with. Unsourced information is simply not included in articles when challenged. If this commences again, I advise the involved individuals to file a Request for Comment. Bastiq▼e ^demandez 01:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

In view of the constant revision and lack of discussion attempting to resolve the issue the request for mediation was entirely appropriate. It initiated a process of resolution even if the mediators ignored the problem. Amerindianarts 01:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The mediators did not ignore the problem. The Mediation cabal is severely overworked and understaffed. Mediation is best when there are more than one problem editors, and this is why I suggested another forum may be ultimately best. Bastiq▼e ^demandez 02:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Does the source added really state the case and support the claim that Kidman is an Aussie?? It is Urban who states "I was really proud. We’re both really proud Australians and the support we got from Australia was really overwhelming...". Urban is ironically enough, a New Zealander. Amerindianarts 00:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

That's a peculiar remark. Are you saying that Urban is confused, mistaken about his nationality? Seems a slightly arrogant suggestion, if you don't mind me saying. It would seem perfectly natural for him to consider himself to be an Australian, since that is where he spent the entirety of his formative years, and that fact is no doubt a major influence on his music, which is the reason for his fame in the first place.Ernest the Sheep 22:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)Ernest the Sheep

I would say he is confused on certain points, as are the edits you propose. He is indigenous to New Zealand. He may consider himself as an Australian, but the facts of citizenship dictate that he is also New Zealander (has he denounced that citizenship recently? Please inform me.). The facts belong in an opening paragraph. What he considers himself is fodder for the article content, as is his speaking for Kidman. His comment doesn't make it fact. Now, that was simple, wasn't it?Amerindianarts 10:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Again, I have to say that your assertion that he might be confused does smack of just a little bit of arrogance on your part, no offence intended. I have no knowledge of what citizenship Urban may hold at present, but I do not believe this to be of any particular relevance anyway. As far as I am aware Urban grew up in Australia and it would appear that he certainly regards himself as being an Australian, which is hardly unexpected. Yes, he may also be a New Zealander, but as far as I can tell in the field of country music his *nationality* is Australian. It is as a result of this kind of unsophisticated approach to matters, a fixation on the vagaries of citizenship and the like, that we end up with ridiculous arguments such as whether Kidman is an Australian or American. As far as I and the vast majority of the world is concerned Nicole Kidman has always been Australian, so it seems silly for wikipedia to even contemplate contradicting this. Kidman is an Australian actress who also happens to holds American citizenship. It is as simple as that. Ernest the Sheep 00:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

No, and so it's reverted. Still looking for a reference that states she considers herself Australian, over and above American. And, considering her lifestyle is funded by Hollywood, that is proving hard to find. --Steve 01:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I "love" how these "people" are putting up dodgy articles to justify this issue on the Aus v US citizen issue - what would be awesome if someone could get a statement from Kidman's management/agent regarding this. --Mikecraig 01:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Even in the case of a non-dodgy citation the info is hardly lead paragraph material in this case, but I'm not going to get into a revert war again with a user who refuses to reason, or engage in discussion as to consensus on the issue. Communication and mutual intelligibilty are lacking here. Amerindianarts 02:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

After checking various bios (Mel Gibson, Russell Crowe, Naomi Watts, Keith Urban, Errol Flynn) and the list of Australian actors it seems the Wiki precedent is to name the person as to citizenship. Gibson is listed as "American" stating that he maintained US citizenship after moving to and living in Australia for twelve years. One would assume that perhaps his family may have applied for Aussie citizenship after all those years, but the article does not refer to citizenship as such and lists him as an American actor, and he is included on the Wiki list of Australian actors. Flynn is listed as Australian: there is no reference to American citizenship (he may not have applied). Others are listed according to birthplace and applied citizenship. Amerindianarts 00:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Then why not do the simple: why not just list her as an Australian? After all that's how she feels about it! She has both Australian and American citizenship and she has the right to choose what's her nationality is out of these two. Of course, it'd be silly if she suddenly decided that she's Japanese or French never having such citizenships but as long as the person has a citizenship of a country, it's up to them to decide if it's their nationality.

Quick Time

Quick Time is free, you don't have to buy it to be able to watch Quick Time movies. In addition they can be played with VLC media player which is open source. Hence I will reinsert the links. And you even deleted the YouTube link. 84.41.34.154 08:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Look again. The YouTube link disappeared on an edit by 85.55.177.168, not my edit. When I went to the link you posted and tried to open the file it offered Quick Time for $29.95. I saw no free offer. Wiki is not too fond of these type of links (media), they really don't offer much info to be substantiated by a point in the article, which is the purpose of external linking. They also don't like links with downloads unless the download license can be verified. You might check this first.Amerindianarts 09:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Nicole Kidman is an Australian

The description of her as being Australian-American is outright embarrassing. I can't recall ever hearing or reading such a statement elsewhere. She is universally regarded as being an Australian actress. So how about we exercise a little bit of common sense and change it back to just Australian? Who else agrees?Ernest the Sheep 22:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)Ernest the Sheep

I removed it, though I must admit I don't recall if that was the consensus of the RfC. --Yamla 22:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The mediation is still open closed --Steve 23:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

She was born in the USA and holds dual citizenship. The current lead looks ok to me except I might put American before Australian :) Just kidding, keep as is is fine --Tom 21:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Dr Kidman

A couple of people have been adding in an unsourced statement that Nicole's father Dr Anthony Kidman died in 2001. I believe this is a hoax and should be reverted on sight per WP:BLP. A quick Google search pulls up plenty of references that indicate he was alive at least as recently as October 24, 2006 [2]. Please revert this information if it continues to show up without sources. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 01:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Source requested for "Australian-ness"

I can't believe this has to be debated. It confuses citizenship with nationality/culture. I mean, it's not even as if Kidman is only a US citizen and even if she were, it still wouldn't necessarily make her culturally American. Plenty of people have only one citizenship and yet are still regarded as being part of another nationality (see Rupert Murdoch). Kidman happens to have been born in Hawaii. Big deal. Her parents are Australian, she grew up in Australia and went to school here. She speaks Australian English and is used as an example of "General Australian" accent in the article Varieties of Australian English. It doesn't need verification because it's bleeding obvious that she is culturally Australian. Grant65 | Talk 01:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Even though the burden of proof should be on the "she's-an-American-too" crowd, I have now provided two references:

• "Hollywood was initially sceptical that because she was Australian she couldn't perform as a regular American. She says: "A common reaction from casting people and directors was, 'She can't do an American accent', or, 'How's she going to understand the American mentality?' Now it's almost a plus to be Australian, people are intrigued by it, they have seen we can do accents, we can take on personas, and we can embody characters."[3]

• "NICOLE KIDMAN: I think being an Australian makes you unique in terms of working internationally. So therefore, if you find somebody else that you really like that happens to be the same nationality as you and happens to be, you know, what I consider the best hairdresser in the world - wow - then, there's a friendship, there's a professional respect."[4]

Grant65 | Talk 02:18, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Bah. This is being discussed over and over. We really need a policy here. Yes, she is Australian. No she's not an American. But it also has nothing to do with culture. The ONLY two things that made her Australian is the fact that she's an Australian citizen, and backed up by the only fact that she considers her Australian. Technically, you're X National if you hold X citizenship. Or at least, that's the most politically correct way to treat it.

The standard is to go by nationality. By that policy, she is American and Australian. I'll note also that she clearly feels being American is important, otherwise she would have given up her American citizenship. --Yamla 04:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Why the hell would she give it up and who says where you are born and technical citizenship has anything to do with nationality? Grant | Talk 04:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Tom Cruise did not leave her knowing she was pregnant and be the cause of miscarriage

So whoever keeps putting that back in, get a life. They didn'tknow she was pregnant when they decided to end their relationship. He was not the cause of the miscarriage, she's pretty much never spoken about it.Johnpedia 23:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Please do not make personal attacks, and provide sources that they didnt know she was pregnant, and it doesnt state that he was the cause of the miscarriage. Joneleth 20:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Actress vs actor

If you've ever seen her in Eyes Wide Shut, she's clearly neither.

In keeping with avoiding sexist language wherever possible, i any reference to nicole kidman as an actress to an actor. It is taken for granted that she is female, and while actor is the normative, supposedly generic term, actress seems to suggest that she is a deviation to this norm. i urge everyone to assist in making these changes wherever possible and maintaining their edits to this regard.

additionally, terms such as 'comedienne', 'murderess' and 'chairman' should be changed to their gender neutral equivilants wherever possible, sensical and relevant. Character234 04:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)Character234

Sorry but that's nonsense. There's nothing sexist about words like that and changing them is just pandering to the PC brigade. SteveLamacq43 14:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

it's not, it's just ridiculous to call her an actress when she's an actor. would you call a female murderer a murderess? there's no such thing as an actress. Character234 08:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

or would you call a female butcher a butchess? or a female doctor a doctoress? maybe a female chef a chefess? stop being ridiculous and leave it as it

I think that should be "butchress" and "doctress" ;-) Murderess is (or used to be) a widely-used word, but I think you're right in that "-ress" is a kind of diminutive. I can't see why anyone would object to gender-neutral terms, especially when it doesn't involve neologisms like "actperson". The use of "she" and her" in the article makes it clear that Kidman is female, so "actor" would be better, unless its a proper name like "Academy Award for Best Actress". Grant65 | Talk 13:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Didn't she win an Oscar for "Best Actress"? Afaik, it's not referred to as "Best Female Actor". Which brings me to one of my bugbears. There are no separate Oscars for female writers vs. male writers, female directors vs. male directors, female producers vs. male producers. If the PC brigade is so intent on calling female actors simply "actors", why don't they demand the instant abolition of the "Best Actress" Oscar, and have all actors (male and female) compete for the sole "Best Actor" award? -- JackofOz 11:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

birthplace

I thought I read somewhere once that she was born in Hawaii. Doesn't that rate a mention somewhere?

It's mentioned in the second sentence! --Steve _(Slf67) ^talk 22:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Removed uncited content per BLP

Can be viewed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nicole_Kidman&diff=104509876&oldid=104504403 -- CyberAnth 04:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Refs were added, not sure why you removed it again, but I've reverted your change. --Steve _(Slf67) ^talk 05:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Awards List

Looking at this article, I was wondering if the exhaustive awards list is necessary. They're all important awards, but having a long list of awards and nominations just looks tacky, in my opinion. Perhaps they could just be mentioned in the career section and as special notes in the filmography, instead of being a separated section? I'd be willing to help with that if the rest of you agree. What do you all think? - Lulu288 00:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Miscarriage - false

The article says that she suffered a miscarriage. Kidman has recently denied that it was a miscarriage (see this or this article). She says it was actually an ectopic pregnancy. I am changing the information in the article, unless anyone has any objections? --DearPrudence 03:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

she is real nice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.101.89.11 (talk) 07:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Nicole Kidman "wants her kids out" of Scientology

• Johnson, Richard (April 18, 2008). "Not Her Faith". New York Post. NYP Holdings, Inc. Retrieved 2008-04-22. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

Source could be used in this article. Cirt (talk) 18:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Olsen, Dawn (2008-05-03). "Nicole Kidman Wants Her Teenage Kids OUT Of Scientology - Cruise De Facto Head Of Scientology". GlossLip. glosslip.com. Retrieved 2008-05-03.

Likely that this has cropped up/will pop up in other sources as well. Cirt (talk) 19:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Request for comment: Australian-American or American-Australian?

• • RfC complete

Okay, let's put an end to this edit war. I could have been born in America, but that wouldn't make me American-British. Just because someone is born in a different country, it doesn't mean that their nationality changes with it. So, comments please? And no more reverting, or I will block those who continue. Consider this your only warning. PeterSymonds (talk) 07:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

No, Peter, if you were born in the U.S. then you would be a U.S. citizen and you would be referred to as a American-Brit, its as simple as that. By the way, I love your country and I studied at Oxford University during law school. My business partner is based in London and it gives me an excuse to visit quite often. Have a good day!--InaMaka (talk) 15:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• I agree, the rest of her family are Australian , she recognizes herself as Australian she should be considered Australian. Since these guys won't give it a rest with the American thing, I changed it to Australian-American yet they insist on the American-before-Australian.CoheedLovesCambria (talk) 08:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

So let's some issues straight first. The edit that I made is based upon Wikipedia policy nothing else. Wikipedia policy is very, very clear. Under the definition of the Am-Au, an Am-Au is someone who is born in Am and then moves to Au, for whatever reason. Please see American Australian. That is right out of the Wikipedia article on Am-Au. Also, when you review the definition of Au-Am, it makes it very clear that a Au-Am is born in Au and then moves to another country and maintains their Au heritage. Please see Australian American. Please note from the discussion in Wikipedia concerning the term Au-Am, the person involved must be a naturalized U.S. citizen, which Kidman clearly is NOT. Kidman was born in the U.S and moved to Au when she was four years old, therefore, she is an Am-Au. The fact she was born in the U.S. makes her a U.S. citizen. That is a fact and no amount of Wikipedian opinion can change that fact. The only person that change that fact is not a Wikipedian at all, but Kidman herself. If she renounces her U.S. citizenship then she is no longer a U.S. citizen. But, as far as I know, she has NOT renounced her U.S. citizenship. Also, to renounce your American citizenship is not just making comments critical of the U.S. or U.S. foreign or domestic policy. The requirements of renouncing your citizenship are very clear and are NOT abitratary. Please see "Renunciation of U.S. Citizenship" from the U.S. Department of State. If she has taken action and unquestionably renounced her U.S. citizenship and someone who is working on this article is aware of it then please provide all of the editors a citation to that fact, but until that information is provided we have to work under one basic assumption: she is a U.S. citizen. See Jus soli. For verification of my on-point, correct, and undeniable delineation of this issue, please see talk page discussion for Boris Johnson, the newly-elected mayor of London. Now, clearly her parents moved back to Au after she was born and she was raised in Australia. So therefore she has legal grounds to claim Au citizenship: Jus sanguinis. Because of her particular situation, her nationality is almost exact in nature to that of Mel Gibson. Gibson like Kidman was born in the U.S., making both of them without a doubt U.S. citizens. And Gibson just like Kidman moved from the U.S. to Australia at a young age, making them both Australian citizens. And just like Gibson, Kidman moved from North America (U.S.) to Australia, making them both American-Australians. (Also, on a different topic, I didn't even know I was in an edit war because I found this topic very clear. And finally, the fact that an admin has gotten involved and threatened to block anyone for any disagreement seems to be excessive and overbearing.) I hope my clear outline of the issues settles this disagreement.--InaMaka (talk) 15:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Oooops! I found an interview with Kidman by CNN from January 18, 2002. She admits that she has dual citizenship, so the argument that she is "full AUSTRALIAN" (capitalization was in original comment) as many of my fellow Wikipedians claim is hogwash.:

CNN: Speaking of which, you play a Russian, you're really Australian, but you weren't born in Australia -- a lot of people would be surprised about where you were born.

KIDMAN: Hawaii. My dad was studying ... . He had a scholarship at the University of Hawaii. And that's where I happened to be born. And then we moved to Washington, D.C. until I was three. But both my parents are Australian. I'm a weird mix. I'm a mutt.

CNN: Do you have duel citizenship?

KIDMAN: Yes, I do have duel citizenship. And so do my kids. I told them that they will appreciate that when they are older.

Notice that CNN misspells the word "duel"--not once but twice. What boneheads! Do they know the difference? Also, notice that Kidman is quite PROUD of her U.S. citizenship and she is quite proud of her children's U.S. citizenship. That blows huge holes in the argument that she self-identifies as a "full AUSTRALIAN" (capitalization was in original comment) as other fellow Wikipedians were incorrectly claiming.--InaMaka (talk) 15:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• Please see Australian_American, the introduction clearly states among others "by holding Australian citizenship, or being a descendant of people from Australia." Of course she can be proud of her American Citizenship (key word citizenship) it's where she gets a lot of work. BUT this doesn't change the FACT that she regards herself as Australian first and foremost.

That interview DOES NOT blow holes in anything, because theres about hundred more where she states being proud of being AUSTRALIAN.

In a August 29, 2004 interview with The Sydney Morning Herald it was noted that "In interviews Kidman generously shares her thoughts about how her career has developed and her incredible pride in being Australian. She is grateful for the point of difference it gives her in Hollywood and "would like for my country to be proud of me". CoheedLovesCambria (talk) 17:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, yes, there are huge, gapping holes in your claim that Kidman is "full AUSTRALIAN" (emphasis yours). She states flat out in the CNN interview that she has dual citizenship and she states flat out that her children have dual citizenship. Holes, big ones.--InaMaka (talk) 17:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, who is denying that she has duel citizenship? That doesn't mean she recognizes herself as American at all. The fact is that, and I'll repeat she recognizes herself as Australian, in the The Sydney Morning Herald interview I provided "In interviews Kidman generously shares her thoughts about how her career has developed and her incredible pride in being Australian. She is grateful for the point of difference it gives her in Hollywood and "would like for my country to be proud of me". So if anything that just "blows holes" (your wording) through your argument where you claim she doesn't recognize herself as Australian first and foremost.CoheedLovesCambria (talk) 06:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

First of all, she states that she has dual citizenship, which means that she has a citizen other than Australian. Second, you are quoting the reporter in the quote above. Third, you are ignoring the definitions of Au-Am and Am-Au. And finally, the "first and foremost" phrase is your phase, completely made up by a Wikipedian, you. It ranks right up there with your previous made up phrase that Kidman is a "full AUSTRALIAN" (your emphasis), whatever that phrase means. You have not chosen to ignore all of the definitions of Au-Am and Am-Au because they do not align with what your personal perference for the article should be.--InaMaka (talk) 11:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Her holding duel citizenship doesn't mean she regards as a American, it's more of a convenience to have both since she gets most of her work there. She is proud of holding duel citizenship but regards herself as Australian. If you choose to ignore all the evidence regarding this and go against the majority, than that is not my problem. The quote I provided was from was a extremely repeatable source, and it was gathered from interviewing Nicole Kidman herself. I'm not ignoring anything, she has more in common with AU-AM than AM-AU. About First and foremost, yes it's a phrase, a phrase which represents Kidman's view on her country.CoheedLovesCambria (talk) 07:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Dear Cambria: The first sentence of the Australian-American article states that the person be a naturalized U.S. citizen. Its as simple as that. Kidman is a U.S. citizen by birth, not naturalization, so she is an American. She continues to claim U.S. citizenship and she has never chosen to renounce it. I'm sure that she is proud of being an Australian but that does not have anything to do with the rules. The rules are clear. She is an American Australian, just like Mel Gibson. I know that many, many Australians want to claim her as ONLY theirs but clearly from the CNN quote above Kidman also claims the U.S. and no amount of Australian pride can change that. She self-identifies as a U.S. citizen and we as Wikipedians cannot over-rule her own desires to be considered a U.S. citizen. The only person who can change that is Kidman herself and she hasn't and she has stated that wants to be considered a U.S. citizen. She was born in the U.S. and she moved, at a young age, to Australia, that's the definition of American Australian.--InaMaka (talk) 17:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's breakdown the definition of Australian American as defined by Wikipedia, the project on which we are all working: An Australian American is a naturalised American citizen with a significant relationship to Australia, such as by being born in Australia, by holding Australian citizenship, or being a descendant of people from Australia. The definition is quite clear. There are two parts to the definition. The First Part is being a naturalised American citizen. The Second Part requires a "significant relationship to Australia". The Second Part can be met three ways: (1) Born in Australia, (2) Holding Australian citizenship, or (3) or a descendant of people from Australia. Now, let's apply this definition to Kidman. She does NOT, in any way, met the requirements of the First Part. She is NOT a naturalized U.S. citizen. She is a citizen of the U.S. by birth, not naturalization, so therefore she does not meet the basic requirement of the First Part. Now, she does meet the Second Part by holding Australian citizenship and by being a descendant of people from Australia. But meeting the Second Part and not meeting the First Part is does not make her an Australian American.--InaMaka (talk) 19:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Now, let's breakdown the definition of American Australian as defined by Wikipedia, the project on which we are all working: American Australians are Australians who are either born in, or descended from migrants from Anglophone North America — usually the United States and its territories. This definition is also quite clear. Once again, it has two parts to it also, just like Australian American. Part ONE requires the individual to be an Australian. Part TWO requires the individual to have some relationship with America. Part TWO can be met in two ways: (1) born in the U.S. or its territories OR (2) descended from migrants from the U.S. or its territories. Now, let's apply this definition to Kidman. She meets Part ONE clearly. Part ONE does not state how one is an Australian, but that does not matter because all that is required is the individual be an Australian. We all agree that Kidman is clearly an Australian by merit of being a child of Australian parents. Now, let's apply Part TWO. All that it requires is the individual have some relationship with America by being born in America. Yes, Kidman was born in America (Hawaii) and therefore she meets both tests of the definition of American Australian. Well, that closes down all of the arguments that could possibly be made on this topic and the only logical conclusion is that Kidman is an American Australian. Have a good day!--InaMaka (talk) 19:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I would also like to mention that she clearly acknowledges her link to America, if not why would she donate to American political parties? Someone that considered themself soley an Australian would care about Austarlian politics not America's, not to mention that she could NOT donate at all if she was not an American citizen. Also to the person that reverted the other day and said "the only thing that matters is heritage". Well if that is so the only real Australians would be Aborigines. The caucasians of Australia actually British by Heritage. By birth she is a native of Hawaii which is in the United States. Unless her parents were in the U.S. as a representitive of the Australian government, which they weren't. They were actually living in the U.S. Swampfire (talk) 20:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Good point, Swampfire. I looked Kidman's political donations. You can review them here: Nicole Kidman's federal political donations. It is clear that Kidman has given to Hillary Clinton, Nick Clooney (George Clooney's father), Al Gore, Tom Daschle, Tom Harkin, and the Democratic National Committee. She seems to be awful busy giving money to national Democrats in the U.S. for someone who a few Wikipedian's claim is a "full AUSTRALIAN" (emphasis was in the original comment)--InaMaka (talk) 21:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

TY InaMaka, also it is Illegal for a non-American to make a donation and illegal for a politician to accept it, and like we both mentioned, why would she care about the polictics in America? Unless that is that it affects her, because she is American too.Swampfire (talk) 20:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm responding to the RfC. I have a question: what does it matter how Kidman regards herself? Your nationality is not determined by you, but by the laws of the country in question. I regard myself as Scottish (my mother and grandmother were born in Scottland), but that doesn't make me Scottish-American. I have no right to claim Scottish citizenship and should only be labled a Scottish-American in the loosest sense of the phrase. I have a family friend that keeps getting called an African-American, but he's from Jamaica, not Africa. It looks clear that, according to WP, Kidman is an American-Austrailian, regardless of what she regards herself to be. Padillah (talk) 20:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

RFC response. When I read the topic on the RFC board I thought of course she's an Australian American, however, I did not know she was born in the U.S. and holds dual citizenship. Have to say that my outside opinion, after reading the definitions on various Wiki articles, is that she's an American-Australian (though I do understand it is counter to most people's perceptions of her).Renee (talk) 22:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

RFC response. Perhaps everyone is going at this the wrong way. Why is it paramount that she be referred to as either American-Australian or Australian-American? This issue could be argued endlessly and a lot of good energy is being spent over what could be viewed as semantics. This might be better resolved by developing a specific statement that encompasses all of this: Nicole Kidman is a film actress who was born in Hawaii to native Australian parents while her father was studying at the University of Hawaii. Kidman holds dual Australian and United States citizenship. Rather than trying to categorize her, explain the situation. Wildhartlivie (talk) 12:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Support. Brilliant solution.Renee (talk) 00:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

OUTSIDE OPINION I basically concur the above statement. The last sentence before the TOC has an explanation, as well as the early life section (and this could be expanded if need be). Why not make the first sentence "...is an Academy Award-winning actress." and elaborate somewhere else? JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 04:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Support suggestion by Wildhartlivie --Matilda ^talk 07:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Strong Support suggestion by Wildhartlivie. Agree that a lot of time and energy is being spent when all it needs is to clearly state all the facts in her profile. Michellecrisp (talk) 07:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Strong Support suggestion by Wildhartlivie. A lot clearer and more concise, leaves out twisted terms. Padillah (talk) 12:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Will also point out, she was born and lived in the U.S. from 1967 - 1971 (4 years) then moved to Australia from 1971 - 1989 (17 years), then she has resided primarily in the U.S. since then 1989 - present (19 years). So while living in Australia is where she got her acting start and is where her parents were from. She was born in the U.S. and has primarily resided in the U.S. for the MAJORITY of her life (23 years as a pimary resident of the U.S., 17 years as a primary resident of Australia). So for that fact, the proper term should be Austarlian-American.Swampfire (talk) 20:58, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

RFC RESPONSE. This whole discussion is pretty silly really. Terms such as American-Australian or Australian-American are gobbledegook. I'm sure most people would be confused as to just what is implied by their use. The fact that there may be a Wikipedia article explaining them adds little credibility to their use here. What is more important though is that they are terms rarely used in the media when talking about or describing Nicole Kidman. I would agree that technically you may be able to justify the use of these terms, but what I would question is the appropriateness of using them as a descriptor in the opening paragraph of the article. Whenever Kidman's nationality is mentioned in the general media it is almost always the case that she is referred to as an Australian. It would be very rarely indeed that she would be referred to as solely American. Hence I can't see how you can justify using the term Australian-American to open the article. It is not in line with the majority of references I can find. Hence it is my opinion that evidence needs to be provided to support such a precedence. For example the Encarta World English Dictionary describes her as a Hawaiian-born Australian actor. I would be happy to go along with that.Ernest the Sheep (talk) 04:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

(don't want to put words in your mouth but...) Looks like this is yet more support for the "spelled out" version proposed by Wildhartlivie. Padillah (talk) 12:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

RfC response: Strong Support suggestion by Wildhartlivie. While "American-Australian" may be technically correct, it would be jarring for the reader, as it is far from the common explanation provided by the media. Spell it out. Readers can be surprised to learn that she was born in the U.S. and holds U.S. citizenship without being thrown for a loop. -Exucmember (talk) 17:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

RFC response: Strongly support Wildhartlivie's suggestion. Please tell me you guys haven't really been arguing for all this time over whether it's more correct to call Kidman Am-Au or Au-Am? Please? I mean, you wouldn't waste your time like that, right? It's impossible to create a categorisation system that neatly covers every case without overlap or ambiguity - it just can't be done and really, whichever version you use won't impart all the subtleties of your views to the reader. Better by far to just describe her background. 4u1e (talk) 10:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, come on. The article has been edited to meet with Wildhartlivie's recommendation a long time ago. Please tell me you aren't really beating a dead horse, are you? Seriously, is there any reference in the article to Am-Au or Au-Am when you wrote your comments? No. Of course, please don't tell me that you are merely repeating the same comments ad nauseum?--InaMaka (talk) 16:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Somebody might like to take the article off the RfC list then. Just a thought. ;-) 4u1e (talk) 10:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. However, I would perfer that someone else do it.--InaMaka (talk) 17:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Nicole Kidman and Cosmetic Surgery

I'm somewhat surprised there has not been mention of her alleged cosmetic procedures as of yet. Kidman has denied that she has any work done; - 'not even botox'.

'Nicole Kidman insists she hasn't had plastic surgery':

http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21598,22704246-5005368,00.html

Kidman - botox speculation:

http://celebritycosmeticsurgery.blogspot.com/search/label/Nicole%20Kidman

Surgeons Weigh In

This cosmetic surgery centre states outright that Nicole Kidman has had rhinoplasty (a nose job):

'Greats like Marilyn Monroe, Nicole Kidman, and Halle Berry have all had a rhinoplasty'.

http://www.ljcsc.com/articles/considering_rhinoplasty.html

These gentlemen too:

'Whenever you look at Nicole Kidman lately, it is obvious that she is having quite a bit of work done lately. Besides the obvious Botox injections that she has been having, her new nose is quit obvious with its much smaller nostrils. Even the tip of her nose is markedly smaller and shorter'.

http://www.plasticsurgeons.com/resources/hollywood-nose-jobs.htm

Before and After Photos

'Nicole Kidman and Plastic Surgery':

http://plasticsurgeryphotos.blogspot.com/2007/08/nicole-kidman-and-plastic-surgery.html

'Nicole Kidman Plastic Surgery':

http://www.stars-plastic-surgery.com/nicole-kidman-plastic-surgery.html

Sharon Osbourne's Public Allegations of Botox

Sharon Osbourne publicly attacked Kidman's plastic surgery denials, causing a kerfuffle in October 2008:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1076534/Plastic-surgery-lover-Sharon-Osbourne-attacks-Nicole-Kidman-having-forehead-like-flatscreen-TV.html

Regards,

Tiberius Aug (talk) 02:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)