Talk:Rachel Weisz

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Rachel Weisz article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Add new text under old text.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Start a new topic

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2: 30 days

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Rachel Weisz has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
February 10, 2011	Good article nominee	Listed
March 8, 2011	Featured article candidate	Not promoted

Current status: Good article

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Actors and Filmmakers

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers (assessed as High-importance).

England Mid‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

London Low‑importance

	London portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women

Guild of Copy Editors

This article was copy edited by Grapple X, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 7 March 2011.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors

Wiki Loves Pride

This article was created or improved during Wiki Loves Pride, 2018.Wiki Loves PrideWikipedia:Wiki Loves PrideTemplate:Wiki Loves Pride talkWiki Loves Pride

Date of birth

Resolved

Per WP:DOB: If multiple independent reliable sources state differing years or dates of birth in conflict, include all birth dates/years for which a reliable source exists, clearly noting discrepancies. In this situation, editors must not include only one date/year which they consider "most likely", or include merely a single date from one of two or more reliable sources. Original research must not be used to extrapolate the date of birth.

The article currently fails to meet this standard quite badly, given it picks one date to display on the page and relegates the rest to an efn. Further, the efn includes a sentence of original research. I will remove the OR in a moment, but I not in a position at the moment to fully un-pick and fix this part of the page. I'm therefore leaving this message on the talk page in case anyone else is able to fix it in the meantime. JustAnotherCompanion (talk) 21:23, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do not do this. Please review the discussion at Talk:Rachel Weisz/Archive 2. cagliost (talk) 10:10, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What I can glean from that discussion was that it was never resolved. As it stands the article is broken (with big red warning text) as the template used for date of birth doesn't accept the status quo of "1970 or 1971". I've again checked the birth records again both through my personal FindMyPast subscription and the Wikipedia Library's ancestry one and the scans of the actual register clearly shows Rachel Hannah Weisz, mother's maiden name Teich, born Westminster (Vol 5e, Page 2432). You can check this yourself by going to the Wikipedia Library, selecting Ancestry (or going straight to https://www-ancestryinstitution-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/search/collections/8782/) and browsing the first quarter of 1970 with the controls in the top right. But it seems many other editors have done the same and already confirmed this.

I don't see how clearer that evidence could be or what further evidence is needed? DDFoster96 (talk) 19:13, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was and is resolved. We are not "extrapolating" the DOB. Rather, as per WP:PRIMARY, "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source". As per the discussion at Talk:Rachel Weisz/Archive 2, primary and secondary sources were used to dismiss incorrect older secondary sources, regardless of whether they are normally reliable. Reliable is not infallible. cagliost (talk) 15:30, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]