Talk:Russell Crowe/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Filmography

It appears there is a disagreement about whether to add his upcoming films. My view is, if a date is changed, CHANGE THE DATE. If a film is cancelled, REMOVE THE FILM. I asked Bidgee three times to discuss the matter here, but i guess he chose to ignore my edit summaries and pursue reverting. I appreciate WP:FUTURE, but i believe filmography isn't subjected to it. RAP (talk) 22:10 20 December 2011 (UTC)

If we apply WP:NFF to this, the ones where filming has begun is perfectly fine. Les Misérables should not be listed though, as it is still in pre-production, and casting is not even done yet. Nymf _hideliho! 22:36, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree, and I suspect Bidgee would too, given his edit summaries. I told Rusted AutoParts on his talk page that I agreed Bidgee was correct when I warned him about breaching 3RR. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:24, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

And i told Bidgee the very first time to take the matter to the talk page, which he chose to ignore. So i'm here scratching my head, wondering why he gets a pat on the back and I'M the one getting scolded. He breached the WP:3RR first. If Les Miserables is the problem REMOVE THAT. Man of Steel, Broken City and that episode of Republic of Doyle are filming or already finished filming. RAP (talk) 14:50 21 December 2011 (UTC)

As I told you on your talk page,[1] Bidgee did not breach 3RR. In any case, it doesn't matter who breached 3RR first, it shouldn't be breached at all. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:12, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh yes, he did. see [2], at 8:33 on December 19 was his first, at 2:33 on December 20 was his second and at 3:41 the same day was his third, ALL within a 24-hour window. So, rather than pin me down as the culprit, stop thinking Bidgee is a victim. He shouldn't be allowed to strip info based solely on a guideline. RAP (talk) 17:38 21 December 2011 (UTC)

And in any case, you are making this whole thing to be a 3RR issue, whilst it is a content dispute. WP:FUTURE applies to future events that have not been confirmed to happen. As stated above, if Les Miserables is the issue, REMOVE it, do not blank out the two films that are filming and the tv show that is due to air in 2 weeks. RAP (talk) 17:43 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Also as I told you on your talk page, a 3RR breach requires 4 reverts in 24 hours, not 3. By the time you warned him, Bidgee had only made 2 reverts in the preceding 24 hours. "In any case, you are making this whole thing to be a 3RR issue" - I mentioned 3RR once. You're the one who keeps on about it, continuing to argue that another editor has breached 3RR, despite me going to the trouble of explaining on your talk page why he hadn't,[3] specifically so it wouldn't be necessary to raise it here. --AussieLegend (talk) 18:51, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, let's return to the problem at hand. Broken City and Man of Steel are filming right now. The episode of Republic of Doyle airs January 11. Les Miserables enters production in January (don't quote me on that). If WP:FUTURE is being forced here, how come it isn't for every other actor/actress? Why is it that, when i constructively add to his filmography, it's UNconstructively deleted? FUTURE has never been applied to an actor's filmography. And nor should it. I've waited a good 6 days for a response. It's going back in. If you don't want something on the article and don't argue WHY, then there's no argument. RAP (talk) 4:55 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Quite simply, an actor can't have been in a film that hasn't been filmed. It's WP:CRYSTAL to include a film that doesn't exist in an actor's filmography. You should NOT continue being disruptive by adding this film until such time as there is consensus to add it and, based on the responses to date and the number of times it's been deleted, that doesn't look like it's going to happen at this point. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:10, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

So even though i requested in my edit summary you leave it alone until an outside voiuce is heard, you still choose to ignore it? And you wait until i re-add it to fuel interest in this particular problem. Simply you have ignorantly forgot that that part of future also states "if the event is notable and almost certain to take place". Since both Broken City and Man of Steel are filming, i can say they are sure to happen. And the episode of Republic of Doyle airs in two weeks, so that can go in too. RAP (talk) 15:21 28 December 2011 (UTC

Including those looks fine to me. Nymf _hideliho! 17:58, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't work that way and you know that. As the editor adding the content, the burden is on you to justify inclusion, not on others to justify removal. In any case, both Nymf and I are outside voices and we've both said that Les Misérables shouldn't be included. If you look at the thread, you'll see that I was the last to reply, on 22 December, before you chose to restore the content yesterday. I was waiting for you to reply. You can't simply wait a few days and sneak your edits back in, hoping that nobody will notice. At best that's being disruptive. There is no real issue here with films that are filming; Nymf has indicated that above. I've made no comment on them because my concern was with Les Misérables, which shouldn't be included. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:24, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:FUTURE is a policy, adding something that isn't yet a movie or aired program is purely crystal balling. If you don't like the policy, then go to the talk page and discuss to have it changed. Also if they are "filming", were is the reliable source? Bidgee (talk) 11:09, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

No one has applied WP:FUTURE to actor filmog's. It's because people tend to do it the way i mentioned in my first comment. And reliable sources? Read the articles, they have when they began filming on the two films. Rusted AutoParts 15:19 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Really? Just because it may not have applied by other contributors doesn't mean it is ok to add it. Sorry but it has to be cited in this article not in the TV program or the movie articles and it must be a reliable source stating that the movie has began filming and that Rowe is part of the movie. Bidgee (talk) 21:22, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Unreference information about marriage

I removed the unreferenced information about Russel Crowe's marriage. Does anyone have any sources which say that this is his current wife? Please note that I am about to add referenced information on his current marriage which contradicts what was up on the article. So please do hold on for a few minutes! Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 20:22, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I take that back. Sources please! Otherwise please keep it out per BLP policy and OTRS ticket 2011111910043841. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 20:43, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

[4] Reliable, yes? SkyMachine (talk) 20:54, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Yup, absolutely fine by me. For OTRS agents please now see 2011112010040501 for more information. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 22:32, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Reference on Russell Crowe and Danielle Spencer still being married in 2011 dailytelegraph.com.au, Oct 23, 2011; see also Crowe´s Twitter page entry Dec 17, 2011 "russellcrowe Russell Crowe My beautiful wife @spencerdanielle performs at Carols in the Domain,it must be time to say Merry Christmas villagers,best wishes to you all 17 Dez " Ignazwrobel (talk) 19:29, 31 December 2011 (UTC) see also zimbio.com Russell Crowe is married to Danielle Spencer retrieved 06 January 2012Ignazwrobel (talk) 06:36, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Nationality

Please prove he is of Australian Nationality. I have multiple sources that he was refused Australian Citizenship and a direct quote from him that he travels on his New Zealand passport. So prove it or stop adding it.

A fan contributed his IMDB Bio - anyone can add anything to an IMDB Bio it is not a source.

The Courier Mail are as often wrong as they are right but to be fair to them and others it is an understandable error.

Crowe was supposed to be naturalised and it was going to be part of the 2006 Australia Day Ceremony but it was cancelled at the last minute because the protocols had not been completed and subsequently his application was rejected. I have provided all the citations and you keep reverting.

If he had been successful he would have been a dual national of both Australia and NZ but under current Australian law he was not eligible to be a citizen.

Now there was a lot of publicity before Australia Day and a lot of people have just continued to think he was naturalised but it never happened. So it's wrong for you to keep writing he's Australian as he's not.

TVNZ, NZPA and the ABC are much stronger sources too.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.104.187 (talk) 13:43, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

You may well be right but there are problems with your references. The "underarmbowling" website cannot be used as a reference as it's not a reliable source even if it is quoting from one that is. I believe that videos cannot be used for references so that would count TVNZ out as well. The ABC website interview with Crowe does seems to point towards him being a New Zealand only citizen but he does not actually state that this is the case. So until this issue can be resolved properly the best course of action is to reword things appropriately. Afterwriting (talk) 15:18, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

UPDATE: On June 27, 2013, it was reported that Russell Crowe has been refused Australian citizenship and that he remains a New Zealand citizen. I have updated the intro and biographical information to reflect this. The link is here: http://www.stuff.co.nz/entertainment/celebrities/8848732/Kiwi-Russell-Crowe-is-ours-to-own — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.75.155.176 (talk) 00:22, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Swimming pool?

The articles states that "Crowe's sympathies were sparked when a pupil drowned at the nearby Coffs Harbour beach in 2001, and he believes the pool will help students become better swimmers". What pool? There is something missing from the article. If Crowe paid for a pool, or assisted with a pool being built, this should be stated.Royalcourtier (talk) 20:07, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Done thank you for bringing it to our attention. Elizium23 (talk) 21:08, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Secret Service

Crown may well have been threatened by Al Qaeda, though they made a mistake if they thought he was an American. But he would not have been protected by the US Secret Service. The SS only guards the president and top American officials. There is little to no likelihood that they would be used to guard a foreign actor. If there were government provided guards, FBI is more likely.Royalcourtier (talk) 20:09, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I have removed the challenged assertion as well as the one next to it regarding Scotland Yard. There was no supporting source at all. Elizium23 (talk) 21:08, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Removal of content from "Altercations and controversies"

An editor has removed a huge amount of information labeling the cuts as "not notable" and "pov". While the section is not without its problems I don't agree that making huge sweeping cuts to the section is a constructive approach to fixing it. There are a couple of issues I have:

• Removing information on the grounds it is "not notable". This is a false pretext for removing content since notability only pertains to whether an article should exist. WP:NOTEWORTHY specifically states that notability criteria does not apply to article content.

• Secondly, removing content on the grounds it is not neutral is not a constructive way to fixing the problems. If something is not neutral then it can usually be fixed with a re-write, or by adding more content to balance the WP:NPOV concerns.

I suggest the following preliminary steps to address the problems with the section:

1. Remove content that is a direct BLP concern only i.e. if the content is potentially libelous.
2. If something is not sourced then tag it or remove it at your own discretion.
3. If a claim is attributed to a source that you believe does not meet the criteria for WP:RS then either find an alternative source or tag it.
4. If something is not neutral worded, then try and re-write it so it is or otherwise tag it.

Bearing these concerns in mind I am going to restore the content since it has been incorrectly removed under one criterion that does not apply, and no effort has been made to address the second problem constructively. Removing huge amounts of sourced information under sweeping statements looks like a whitewash at best and is disruptive at worst. Betty Logan (talk) 00:15, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Controversy regarding The Water Diviner: In a telegram to the Secretary of State regarding Ottoman Greek deportations conducted in 1915, Henry Morgenthau (1856-1946), United States ambassador to Turkey, states: "Evidently Turkish nationalistic policy is aimed at all Christians and not confined to Armenians."2 In an article first published in The Red Cross Magazine (March, 1918), Henry Morgenthau (1856-1946), United States ambassador to Turkey, asked: "Will the outrageous terrorising, the cruel torturing, the driving of women into the harems, the debauchery of innocent girls, the sale of many of them at eighty cents each, the murdering of hundreds of thousands and the deportation to, and starvation in, the deserts of other hundreds of thousands, the destruction of hundreds of villages and cities, will the wilful execution of this whole devilish scheme to annihilate the Armenian, Greek and Syrian Christians of Turkey -- will all this go unpunished?"3 In his memoirs Ambassador Morgenthau's Story (1918) Henry Morgenthau wrote: "Acting under Germany's prompting, Turkey now began to apply this principle of deportation to her Greek subjects in Asia Minor... This procedure against the Greeks not improperly aroused my indignation. I did not have the slightest suspicion at that time that the Germans had instigated these deportations, but I looked upon them merely as an outburst of Turkish ferocity and chauvinism. By this time I knew Talaat well; I saw him nearly every day, and he used to discuss practically every phase of international relations with me. I objected vigorously to his treatment of the Greeks; I told him that it would make the worst possible impression abroad and that it affected American interests... "Turkey for the Turks" was now Talaat's controlling idea."4 "Their [the Young Turks] passion for Turkifying the nation seemed to demand logically the extermination of all Christians---Greeks, Syrians, and Armenians."5 "The Armenians are not the only subject people in Turkey which have suffered from this policy of making Turkey exclusively the country of the Turks. The story which I have told about the Armenians I could also tell with certain modifications about the Greeks and the Syrians. Indeed the Greeks were the first victims of this nationalizing idea."6 “The Turks adopted almost identically the same procedure against the Greeks as that which they had adopted against the Armenians.”7101.163.77.193 (talk) 04:05, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

→ This section keeps getting removed. Suggest maybe an edit lock as it is probably a concerted effort at controlling image as he's currently releasing his editorial debut. Section restored again, as well as added recent controversy re "actresses acting their age". This is his own words, so would be hard to remove under a POV clause. Erik Veland (talk) 12:26, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I suggest that Crowes controversial and aggressive public participation in circumcision debate is a notable part of his image especially given the long duration of his participation and its obvious newsworthiness in publications with large distribution e.g. Crowe uses his twitter account to enter controversial public debates on a range of issues, such as his opposition to circumcision. Diggers2004 (talk) 03:35, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Most celebrities have Twitter accounts, and most celebrities have opinions on a wide range of topics, but there is a substantial difference between someone just expressing a viewpoint and somebody legitimately taking part in a debate i.e. Liz Taylor and AIDS, Angelina Jolie and sexual violence in war zones etc. If he has engaged in activism against circumcision then I agree his views on the subject would be relevant then, but they should be framed within the context of that debate. You have to bear in mind that he is ultimately only notable for his work related to film, and trivial mentions of his opinions are pursuant to that. Betty Logan (talk) 16:30, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I see the distinction. Thanks Diggers2004 (talk) 01:38, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

References

RfC : Trying to resolve the ongoing New Zealand / Australian issues.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

There has been an ongoing issue with this article for some years over whether (or in what ways) Russell Crowe ought to be described as being either a New Zealander or an Australian or as both. This results in an edit war on a reasonably regular basis. Although I attempted in a section above to try and resolve this tiresome issue by discussion and consensus this didn't get anywhere and was responded to with some false accusations that I had a personal agenda or was actually encouraging a further edit war. Nothing could be further from the truth. So I would greatly appreciate it if some neutral and constructive editors could have a look at the comments in the section above and suggest a way forward. Thanks. Afterwriting (talk) 04:51, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments

• Support New Zealand nationality with qualification. While Russell Crowe may well be associated with Australia and regard himself as culturally Australian it would be factually inaccurate to describe him as Australian. He is not regarded as "Australian" under Australian law, having his citizenship application denied. New Zealand nationality is also enshrined in law, and a citizen cannot relinquish NZ nationality unless he obtains citizenhip of another country first. People come here for hard facts, not wishy-washy editorialising from us. The lede currently describes him as a New Zealand national domiciled in Australia and that reflects the reality of his situation. I have no objection to the article expanding on his self-identification, provided it is not at the expense of factual accuracy. This is what the article does at the time of writing so I do not think alterations are necessary. Betty Logan (talk) 05:17, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

• This is not just an issue about his legal nationality. No one is arguing with that fact I hope. But while he is still legally a New Zealand citizen does that also make him a "New Zealand actor, film producer and musician"? Has he ever been any of these things in New Zealand in any notable way? As he hasn't so the wording is, at least, misleading even if arguably factual. A more appropriate ~ and more factual ~ wording is to say something such as that he is a "New Zealand-born but Australia-based actor, film maker and musician". The nationality issues can be mentioned further into the article. Afterwriting (talk) 05:35, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

To describe him as "New Zealand born" is misleading since it implies he is not a New Zealand national. He is a New Zealand national that is domiciled in Australia. That is what he is so that is what the article should state. Wikipedia should not be party to misinformation. Betty Logan (talk) 05:52, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Saying, factually, that he is New Zealand-born but Australia-based implies nothing about his nationality one way or the other. That is what he is in reality. The current wording only confuses this fact. His legal nationality is a distinct issue. And, talking about being a party to misinformation, Crowe's identity is clearly much more than just that of a "New Zealand national that is domiciled in Australia". You are really missing the point of this. Afterwriting (talk) 06:11, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Anyway, both of us have had our say and made our points so how about we now take a break and see if anyone else wants to comment? Afterwriting (talk) 06:20, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Clearly no-one is interested in joining the discussion. I am not surprised, since these debates are often tedious and frequent. The second sentence tells us the three main facts, so I propose simply dropping the country altogether from the first sentence so it reads as follows: Russell Ira Crowe (born 7 April 1964) is an actor, film producer and musician. Although still a New Zealand citizen, he has lived most of his life in Australia and identifies himself as an Australian. If we have that second sentence we don't need to mention his nationality in the opening sentence. Betty Logan (talk) 07:03, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the suggestion above: "Russell Ira Crowe (born 7 April 1964) is a New Zealand an actor, film producer and musician. Although still a New Zealand citizen, he has lived most of his life in Australia and identifies himself as an Australian." --Mkativerata (talk) 07:36, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I can support this wording. It is the kind of common sense wording I was seeking all along. I agree with Mkativerata's suggestion to not include "still" but this isn't that important either way. Afterwriting (talk) 05:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Support. Viriditas (talk) 04:19, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

It seems we are all on the same page on this. Anyone object to me installing Mkativerata's rewording, or do we have to wait for the RFC to formally conclude? Betty Logan (talk) 05:04, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

My preference would be for you to make the change, but to keep the RfC open until it closes. That way, if someone objects to the changes in progress, they can be pointed here and participate in the discussion. If there's still a consensus, you can use the RfC to support the changes. Viriditas (talk) 06:00, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I have initiated the changes so we can see how that goes. Thanks for your's and Mkativerata's input. Betty Logan (talk) 17:48, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

• LegoBot summoned me. It looks like consensus has already been reached, but since the RFC has remained open, I will say that the consensus-derived opening described above looks good to me, too. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:48, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

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

New Zealander and Australian

Why are some so quick to revert back to Crowe being a New Zealander. The man himself, has publicly stated that he identifies himself as an Australian. It is important to highlight his New Zealand heritage, but equally his Australian identity. Hence, why one of 'New Zealand-born Australian', or 'New Zealander Australian' would make far more sense. The link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdTaa_nLkok&t=12m22s

It is time this issue was properly resolved. It is misleading to say that is a a "New Zealand actor ...". He may still legally, due to technicalities, be a New Zealand citizen but he has principally lived in Australia most of his adult and and also principally identifies himself as being an Australian. Therefore to insist in saying he is a "New Zealand actor ..." is really just silly. It can't be that difficult to find a way of expressing things without misleading readers. Afterwriting (talk) 01:11, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I have just edited the introduction to more appropriately represent the facts. I request that any editors who might feel tempted to revert or change my edit to first discuss things here. This matter needs to be resolved with common sense. Thank you. Afterwriting (talk) 01:23, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

The information that you have added isn't incorrect, it was just in the wrong section. Crowe identifying himself as a particular nationality should be noted in the Early or Personal Life section. I just don't see how it belongs as the first or second sentence of the article. ^(talk)4TheWynne^(cont) 01:26, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you in principle but we need to find a form of words for the intro which stops the edit warring. Yours was a good attempt but it still has has the problem of saying he is an "Australian" when, legally, he isn't. Afterwriting (talk) 01:29, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

It is still more correct than to simply say that Crowe is a "New Zealand actor". It is up to you to stop reverting and find an alternative. I will restore my work, word the sentence differently and put it in one of the aforementioned sections, instead of putting a sentence in the lead which doesn't belong there. This will put an end to an edit war which you are starting. ^(talk)4TheWynne^(cont) 01:37, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

"New Zealand-born Australian actor ..." is misleading as it gives the impression that he is no longer a New Zealand citizen but an Australian when this is not legally true. Please keep discussing and respect my request. I have not started an "edit war" ~ just the opposite. I am seeking consensus on the wording. It is up to you to stop edit warring. Afterwriting (talk)

• Nationality is a legal concept in Australia. We should not be stating that Crowe is an Australian national when this is factually inaccurate under Australian law. What Crowe identifies as is secondary to the factual considerations of what he is. By all means clarify his status but please do not misrepresent it. Betty Logan (talk) 01:47, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

That is exactly what I am trying to do. Crowe is not legally a "New Zealand-born Australian actor ..." But it is also misleading to simply say that he is a "New Zealand actor ..." We need need to clarify the facts without misleading wording. The wording I have proposed, I believe, acceptably does this. It would be good if it wasn't needed in the introduction but something is needed there to stop the ongoing edit warring on this matter. If you or any other editors can suggest an improvement to my wording then please do so. Afterwriting (talk) 01:54, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I've been meaning to keep away from this debacle, keeping a close eye on it in the meantime. I have just felt that there are better ways to represent Crowe than as a "New Zealand actor" (and that it should be left in another section), and to say that he is "a New Zealander first and foremost" sounds opinionative. I'm no expert, though. You guys can keep discussing, and I'll go with whatever works. ^(talk)4TheWynne^(cont) 01:56, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

It is not misleading to say he is a "New Zealand actor who lives in Australia" or something to that effect since that is in reality what he is. He is hardly an exception around the world: there are many nationals who live in other countries (and I am one of them!). If Crowe considered himself a New Zealander this wouldn't be an issue, so it is his perspective that is causing the problems; however, his perspective does not alter the facts. Just present the facts as they stand i.e. his legal nationality, where he lives etc, and Crowe's perspective can be covered in the personal section. Betty Logan (talk) 02:08, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

It certainly is misleading because neither he or almost anyone else considers him to be a "New Zealand actor ..." He and just about the whole world identifies him as an Australian. That is also a fact. As I keep saying, we need to find a suitable form of words that ~ as far as reasonably possible ~ represents ALL the facts on this matter and stops the edit warring. If the best way to do this is to clarify things in the introduction then let's just do so. Although having the clarification further down in the article would be better it just won't work in stopping the edit war. Sometimes the Manual of Style needs to be ignored when needed as in this instance. Afterwriting (talk) 02:13, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

The law defines him as a New Zealander. Just because the world associates him with Australia does not mean we should be party to misinformation. They associate Mel Gibson with Australia too but that does not alter the fact he is American. Betty Logan (talk) 02:19, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Do you want to stop the edit warring or are you only interested in legal technicalities? See comment below. Afterwriting (talk) 02:28, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I propose changing the wording to "New Zealand-born actor ...". Whilst not ideal it is still factual and when clarified by the other facts is more appropriate. Many people can be born in a country and still legally a citizen without that being the country they are identified with by either themselves or others. Afterwriting (talk) 02:26, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I oppose it. It obfuscates the fact he is a New Zealand national. The lede currently addresses all angles (nis nationality/where he lives/what he culturally identifies as) so I see no reason for altering it any further. And if you want to stop the edit-warring you could simply stop pushing your agenda, because the article was stable until you came along. Betty Logan (talk) 02:46, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Stable"? This matter hasn't been stable for years! So you can stop with the gratuitously offensive comments and making false accusations about me "pushing" some kind of personal "agenda". The only agenda I have is to be constructive editor and try and resolve this ongoing issue. Since you can't comment intelligently without being offensive I will be raising a Request for Comment about this as we are getting nowhere. Afterwriting (talk) 04:34, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Russell Crowe may certainly think of himself as an Australian, but the Immigration Department says otherwise.... http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/celebrity/russell-who--immigration-department-asks-20150325-1m7q55.html Gilberticus Fyshius (talk) 12:03, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Russell Crowe "befriending" journalists

An IP has repeatedly removed the following statement several times:

...except for in Australia where Crowe had made a point of befriending journalists in an effort to control his image.

Source: The Sydney Morning Herald

Maybe the IP could expand on what the problem is? That Crowe didn't befriend journalists? That he didn't attempt to manipulate the media? Is there a problem with the credibility of the source? The story—if we take it as read—appears to vindicate the claim so I don't really understand what the issue is. Betty Logan (talk) 21:11, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

There are hundreds of journalists in Australia and him throwing a telephone at somebody was all over the news. It's impossible that befriending a few people means his image wasn't negatively effected in Australia. 194.82.100.172 (talk) 21:23, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

What if we re-worded it slightly as follows: "...although in Australia Crowe has made a point of befriending journalists in an effort to control his image." Would that work for you? I think the underlying story of his attempts to manipulate the media are interesting and well worth retaining. Betty Logan (talk) 21:35, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I've only managed to read half of that very long article but so far it's just one guy claiming all this. Is there independent confirmation? I'd also go with "influence" rather than control. 194.82.100.172 (talk) 21:49, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

It seems to be one journalist's personal obersvations (and perhaps that should be more explicit), but do we have a reason to doubt its authenticity? It is published in a respectable publication. Has Crowe challenged the account at all? Betty Logan (talk) 15:00, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Republic of Doyle

He also appeared on the CBC Republic of Doyle show alongside Alan Doyle. Tried to add it with citations (this is referenced on the Republic of Doyle wiki entry) but got taken down for some reason. Maybe someone who knows how this works can add it? Reference is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Doyle#Recurring_Cast — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.90.93.21 (talk) 21:41, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Apparent mistake in early life section

Crowe says in this video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vHTlSDvDO8 - that he planned to study history at university but couldn't because his father lost his job and he needed to get one. The bio however says he left school at 16 to pursue acting (unsourced). 2.103.13.171 (talk) 00:02, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Russell Crowe nationality in infobox

I thought we had turned a corner on this issue, but unfortunately the dispute has now progressed to the infobox. An editor has been adding Australian "nationality" to the infobox which I have now twice reverted. It would be nice if we could resolve this quickly in a collegiate manner without much aggro. While Crowe may regard himself as Australian he is not an Australian national. This was at the heart of the recent debate. In Australia nationality is legally defined per Australian nationality law, where contrary to the editor's claim, nationality is synonymous with citizenship.

One solution would be to use the citizenship field instead and drop the nationality field, if this is acceptable to other editors. We should refrain from adding Australian "nationality" to the infobox because it is factually inaccurate in regards to how the Australians themselves define the concepts and ambiguous for everyone not familiar with the legal definition. Either way, can we please discuss the issue here first and focus on finding a solution. Betty Logan (talk) 17:24, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

I’m very clearly late to the conversation and each side has valid points. I’m however not content with not including something where a nationality is commonly added. So how about a compromise choice? How about “Russell Ira Crowe is a Oceanian actor”? That way it includes both countries without leverage over the other as well. Rusted AutoParts 08:10, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Personally I agree with you, but I don't really approve of the solution. I think calling him "Oceanian" is just as bad, because which other reliable source does that? The compromise or "consensus" was the result of agenda pushing by Australian nationalists. The facts are that Crowe is a New Zealander actor based in Australia, so I so don't see why we don't just say that. That would give his nationality, occupation and place of residence. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia so we shouldn't be be obfuscating facts IMO. I am certainly open to reviewing the current wording though because I have never really been satisfied by what ended up there. Betty Logan (talk) 22:17, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree because to me it's a tad silly to exclude a nationality because of the fact some disagree over it. We need one there. I would like it if this was brought to a wider audience so more opinion can be put in. Rusted AutoParts 22:25, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, very late to this party. I have always thought of Russell Crowe as an Australian since that is his identity, being an actor whose success is largely a result of the opportunities that became available to him while spending much of his life in Australia. And of course Australia are happy to call him one of their own. However that is not how the authorities see things when it comes to deporting criminals. People are being deported who cannot even remember living anywhere else than in Australia. Not saying Russell Crowe is a criminal but if he were to go off the rails then you can be pretty sure that all of Australia would wash its hands of him and he'd be sent back to NZ. So to call Russell Crowe anything other than a New Zealand actor, director, musician and singer is a double standard.203.118.131.249 (talk) 05:15, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

On a similar note, if he's not technically an Australian citizen, then why is he listed here under Category:Naturalised citizens of Australia? Muzilon (talk) 12:40, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

It's probably slipped in under the radar. It shouldn't be there at any rate. Betty Logan (talk) 13:45, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 November 2022

I want to add that Russell Crowe is a New Zealand actor because his nationality is a New Zealander. Nathanlong3010 (talk) 06:27, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:57, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Link perp walk

Under "Altercations and controversies", middle of fifth paragraph, could we please add a link for the term "perp walk"! A lot of people (outside the US anyway) may not know what that is. Thank you. 2.207.102.127 (talk) 04:40, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 January 2023

Under Acting Career, Australia, change

In 1992, Crowe starred in the first episode of the second series of Police Rescue. Also in 1992, Crowe starred in Romper Stomper, an Australian film which followed the exploits and downfall of a racist skinhead group in blue-collar suburban Melbourne, directed by Geoffrey Wright and co-starring Jacqueline McKenzie. For the role, Crowe won an Australian Film Institute (AFI) award for Best Actor, following up from his Best Supporting Actor award for Proof in 1991.[7]

to

In 1992, Crowe starred in the first episode of the second series of Police Rescue. Also in 1992, Crowe starred in Romper Stomper, an Australian film which followed the exploits and downfall of a racist skinhead group in blue-collar suburban Melbourne, directed by Geoffrey Wright and co-starring Jacqueline McKenzie. For the role, Crowe won an Australian Film Institute (AFI) award for Best Actor, following up from his Best Supporting Actor award for Proof in 1991.[7] Later that year, Crowe appeared on The Late Show portraying his Romper Stomper character as a costumed bear.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IO6MEUyD5ks

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Late_Show_(1992_TV_series)#Shirty:_The_Slightly_Aggressive_Bear 2405:6E00:1E86:9900:C522:91F7:210F:1500 (talk) 01:09, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. We need reliable secondary sources discussing this to demonstrate that it is noteworthy. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:00, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Edco5uXVcAAl7sa?format=png&name=small

There he is. If it's not noteworthy enough to be included in the Acting Career section, would you be able to add it to his filmography list? 2405:6E00:1E47:CE00:81DA:99A9:3F35:D52C (talk) 09:22, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. An image file is not a reliable source. Please ensure that you're familiar with the requirements for reliable sourcing at WP:RS and provide sources in line with those requirements if you wish to open this request again. Actualcpscm (talk) 17:48, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Years of mocking left out

Russell Crowe was for the majority of 1990s the end of the joke, when discussed and mentioned in entertainment media. Before "The Insider", his acting skills and the productions he was involved with were synonyms with "poor" and his name was used to declare a movie or performance meak/laughable. With "The Insider" Crow gained further momentum from the higher-value movie "L.A. Confidential" and eventually landed the lead in "Gladiator". The amount of articles at the time stating 'from jeered to cheered' was plentiful, and his name sequentially applied to those in Hollywood who made u-turns regarding their craft and involvement.

This Wikipedia article almost intentionally seem to omit that section of the actor's first 20 years as an artist. The dive into awarded and praised performances appears immediate and subjective.

An article should reflect a subject's entirety and when chosing to encompass the lauded and applauded part of an artist's life, also need to embrace the less complementary parts of the biography in order to truly article a person. Arcsoda (talk) 03:43, 28 March 2023 (UTC)