Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

_ Biographies of Living Persons _ Juliet Landau gets "rolled" by WP

Posted by: EricBarbour

I'm talking http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Juliet_Landau&diff=prev&oldid=459550382, of course.

She had to send her birth certificate to the WMF, just to stop http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Juliet_Landau#Age inane three-year-long squabble.
Yet the moronic editwar continued thereafter.

(Of course, you realize this shit happens for only one reason: Ms. Landau was on two TV shows
that Wiki-twidders obsess over, Buffy and Angel...... hrmph.gif )

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

Wow, I never realized the full depth of DragonflySixtyseven's idiocy until I saw that page! blink.gif

Posted by: everyking

If you read the talk page, it shows that editors found several newspaper articles that mention her as a child, years before the birthdate she claims for herself. I don't see how you can argue with that.

Posted by: Michaeldsuarez

Can't they include both dates? Can't they say, "Certain newspapers indicate that Juliet Landau was born in 1965, while Juliet Landau, backed by her birth certificate, claim that she was born in 1972"? What happened to "Verifiability, not truth"? It's not up to Wikipedians to decide what the truth is and to force their version of the "truth" down readers' throats.

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(Michaeldsuarez @ Wed 9th November 2011, 9:43am) *

...backed by her birth certificate...


Maybe it could say, "backed by what is likely a forged or altered birth certificate..."?

Posted by: carbuncle

QUOTE(Michaeldsuarez @ Wed 9th November 2011, 2:43pm) *

Can't they include both dates? Can't they say, "Certain newspapers indicate that Juliet Landau was born in 1965, while Juliet Landau, backed by her birth certificate, claim that she was born in 1972"? What happened to "Verifiability, not truth"? It's not up to Wikipedians to decide what the truth is and to force their version of the "truth" down readers' throats.

"Some newspaper sources, published before Landau's birth in 1972, suggest that she was born in 1965, but her true birth date has been confirmed by an unnamed Wikipedia volunteer viewing an image of Landau's birth certificate sent via email by an unknown person."

Posted by: Michaeldsuarez

QUOTE(carbuncle @ Wed 9th November 2011, 10:43am) *

QUOTE(Michaeldsuarez @ Wed 9th November 2011, 2:43pm) *

Can't they include both dates? Can't they say, "Certain newspapers indicate that Juliet Landau was born in 1965, while Juliet Landau, backed by her birth certificate, claim that she was born in 1972"? What happened to "Verifiability, not truth"? It's not up to Wikipedians to decide what the truth is and to force their version of the "truth" down readers' throats.

"Some newspaper sources, published before Landau's birth in 1972, suggest that she was born in 1965, but her true birth date has been confirmed by an unnamed Wikipedia volunteer viewing an image of Landau's birth certificate sent via email by an unknown person."


I know that it sounds weird, but it's hard to believe that this person could have misplaced seven years of her life. Her website (julietlandau.com, Adobe Flash required) says 1972. What possible motivation can she have to spread misinformation about her birth date?

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(Michaeldsuarez @ Wed 9th November 2011, 10:55am) *

What possible motivation can she have to spread misinformation about her birth date?

Clearly, you know nothing about the acting industry.

Posted by: carbuncle

I was curious about this one so I did a little searching of my own.

Here are some newspapers published before the 1972 birth date that mention Martin Landau and Barbara Bain having two children (although they aren't named in every article):

Then there this 1975 article, naming Juliet and identifying her as aged 10: http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=X0k0AAAAIBAJ&sjid=ImcEAAAAIBAJ&pg=4984,4736649&dq=juliet&hl=en.

Probably more telling ishttp://books.google.ca/books?ei=86O6TuWyO-Ho0QHMm7neCQ&ct=result&id=_B1CAQAAIAAJ&dq=juliet&q=+juliet#search_anchor from 1988 which identifies Juliet Landau as 21, which suggests that she was born in 1967.

I believe that the only reasonable explanation is that the Landau & Bain had four children, three of them named Juliet.

Posted by: gomi

QUOTE(carbuncle @ Wed 9th November 2011, 8:12am) *
I believe that the only reasonable explanation is that the Landau & Bain had four children, three of them named Juliet.

Most likely related to http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/18/us-lawsuit-idUSTRE79H6DQ20111018:

QUOTE
Actress sues IMDB for revealing her age

LOS ANGELES - An actress has filed a $1 million lawsuit against show-business database IMDb and its owner, Amazon.com, because IMDb revealed her true age.

With her age made public, she fears she will get fewer roles.

The actress, listed only as Jane Doe in the suit, claims that the site obtained her personal data in 2008, when she subscribed to IMDb's pay service, IMDb Pro, and subsequently listed her age in her bio.

"Shortly after subscribing to IMDbPro, plaintiff noticed that her legal date of birth had been added to her public profile ... revealing to the public that the plaintiff is many years older than she looks," according to the suit.

"In the entertainment industry, youth is king," the suit continues. "If one is perceived to be 'over-the-hill,' i.e. approaching 40, it is nearly impossible for an up-and-coming actress, such as the plaintiff, to get work."

While the suit doesn't list the aging thespian's name, it does list her state of residence as Texas.

Posted by: Michaeldsuarez

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Juliet_Landau&diff=459896782&oldid=459883586

Sorry Silver_seren, but your suspicions are misplaced.

I also like to thank Delicious_carbuncle for exercising responsibility:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Juliet_Landau&diff=459853580&oldid=459851016

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Juliet_Landau&diff=459874235&oldid=459855379

Silver_seren, I'll ask again: Can you please be more careful before drawing conclusions? You made this mistake before:

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=35432&st=0&p=287974&#entry287974

Posted by: EricBarbour

I might also point out: this is an awful bio. It's fannish.
PS, just as an aside, I think http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/75.31.107.215 been editing it herself.
That IP is in Newport Beach. Or maybe it's her agent. Blah.
Plus, she's Jewish. It's a "special" combination on WP. bored.gif

Posted by: Silver seren

QUOTE(Michaeldsuarez @ Thu 10th November 2011, 1:37am) *

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Juliet_Landau&diff=459896782&oldid=459883586

Sorry Silver_seren, but your suspicions are misplaced.

I also like to thank Delicious_carbuncle for exercising responsibility:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Juliet_Landau&diff=459853580&oldid=459851016

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Juliet_Landau&diff=459874235&oldid=459855379

Silver_seren, I'll ask again: Can you please be more careful before drawing conclusions? You made this mistake before:

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=35432&st=0&p=287974&#entry287974


I'm sorry, but you're just being ridiculous. Me specifically pointing out that it "may potentially have something to do with this or it may be about someone completely different" and that there is "no proof this is Landau though" shows exactly that I was just pointing it out as a possibility to keep an eye on. And another user pointed out other details that showed it definitely wasn't likely, so we move on.

This has nothing to do with BLP and you clearly don't know anything about defamation or libel when you're trying to insinuate every little comment as being as such. I don't know why you're so jumpy about all of this, but either way, you're just dead wrong.

Posted by: carbuncle

QUOTE(Silver seren @ Thu 10th November 2011, 5:00am) *

I'm sorry, but you're just being ridiculous. Me specifically pointing out that it "may potentially have something to do with this or it may be about someone completely different" and that there is "no proof this is Landau though" shows exactly that I was just pointing it out as a possibility to keep an eye on. And another user pointed out other details that showed it definitely wasn't likely, so we move on.

Let me try a demonstration to see if you get the point (although I think you're clue-resistant). A recent "news" item:
QUOTE
Actor Hugh Grant, known for films such as "Notting Hill" and "Bridget Jones's Diary," has welcomed a baby girl into his life following a brief affair with an unidentified woman, his spokeswoman said on Tuesday.
Landau is a woman and, given her age, presumably fertile. Would you think it was acceptable to post:
QUOTE
Thanks to Carbuncle on Wikipedia Review, there'shttp://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/01/us-hughgrant-idUSTRE7A05UA20111101 that may potentially have something to do with this or it may be about someone completely different, but: Hugh Grant is new father of baby girl. No proof this is Landau though. Is she living in Los Angeles right now? Silverseren

Posted by: Silver seren

Except there is no logical way that that is Landau. Instead, the situation is that we're dealing with an unidentified woman who is stated to be an actress and is suing IMDB for revealing her real age. We know Landau is an actress and we know that she is currently very active in trying to keep her real age a secret and we also know that IMDB is showing her real age.

There are a number of connections that make it a significant possibility that it was her, which is why I asked about Texas, because that was the unknown factor. The answer was no about Texas and another user found other information that lessened the likelihood of it being her.

Posted by: carbuncle

QUOTE(Silver seren @ Thu 10th November 2011, 4:15pm) *

Except there is no logical way that that is Landau. Instead, the situation is that we're dealing with an unidentified woman who is stated to be an actress and is suing IMDB for revealing her real age. We know Landau is an actress and we know that she is currently very active in trying to keep her real age a secret and we also know that IMDB is showing her real age.

There are a number of connections that make it a significant possibility that it was her, which is why I asked about Texas, because that was the unknown factor. The answer was no about Texas and another user found other information that lessened the likelihood of it being her.

Perhaps your understanding of "logical" is different from mine.

The mother of Hugh Grant's child is a woman. Landau is a woman. The unknown woman is fertile. Given her age, Landau has undergone puberty but likely has not yet entered menopause. Hugh Grant is an actor. Landau is an actor and thus likely to move in the same circles as Grant. The dateline of the Reuters article was Los Angeles. According to IMDB, Landau lives in Los Angeles.

Feel free to tell me why Landau could not be the woman is question.

Posted by: Silver seren

QUOTE(carbuncle @ Thu 10th November 2011, 6:51pm) *

QUOTE(Silver seren @ Thu 10th November 2011, 4:15pm) *

Except there is no logical way that that is Landau. Instead, the situation is that we're dealing with an unidentified woman who is stated to be an actress and is suing IMDB for revealing her real age. We know Landau is an actress and we know that she is currently very active in trying to keep her real age a secret and we also know that IMDB is showing her real age.

There are a number of connections that make it a significant possibility that it was her, which is why I asked about Texas, because that was the unknown factor. The answer was no about Texas and another user found other information that lessened the likelihood of it being her.

Perhaps your understanding of "logical" is different from mine.

The mother of Hugh Grant's child is a woman. Landau is a woman. The unknown woman is fertile. Given her age, Landau has undergone puberty but likely has not yet entered menopause. Hugh Grant is an actor. Landau is an actor and thus likely to move in the same circles as Grant. The dateline of the Reuters article was Los Angeles. According to IMDB, Landau lives in Los Angeles.

Feel free to tell me why Landau could not be the woman is question.


Because there has been no indication that she is romantically involved with anyone. In terms of the article, there is significant indication that she is currently trying to cover up her age. So events involving unknown actresses in regards to covering up ages are plausible, in order to keep an eye on them.

As for your hypothetical Hugh Grant's child scenario, there would be indications that Landau has been pregnant. If she had given birth to a child of an unknown actor, it would be reasonable to hypothesize that Hugh Grant was that actor. Of course, in that sort of scenario, it would be much more high profile and newspapers themselves would have already made that sort of speculation long before any of us.

And pointing out to users on the talk page that they should keep an eye out for reliable sources in regards to that situation with more information, since it is possible Landau is involved, is perfectly fine to do.

Posted by: gomi

Please keep my flippin' pseudonym out of Wikipedia. I personally do not care about Juliet Landau's age, nor Jane Doe's.

Posted by: carbuncle

QUOTE(Silver seren @ Thu 10th November 2011, 7:10pm) *

QUOTE(carbuncle @ Thu 10th November 2011, 6:51pm) *

Feel free to tell me why Landau could not be the woman is question.


Because there has been no indication that she is romantically involved with anyone. In terms of the article, there is significant indication that she is currently trying to cover up her age. So events involving unknown actresses in regards to covering up ages are plausible, in order to keep an eye on them.

As for your hypothetical Hugh Grant's child scenario, there would be indications that Landau has been pregnant. If she had given birth to a child of an unknown actor, it would be reasonable to hypothesize that Hugh Grant was that actor. Of course, in that sort of scenario, it would be much more high profile and newspapers themselves would have already made that sort of speculation long before any of us.

And pointing out to users on the talk page that they should keep an eye out for reliable sources in regards to that situation with more information, since it is possible Landau is involved, is perfectly fine to do.

There is no "significant indication that she is currently trying to cover up her age". We don't know who is trying to get the birth date changed, only that someone allegedly sent her birth certificate to the OTRS email. As has been pointed out already, shaving years of one's age is hardly unique in her profession. In any case, you seem to be reacting to those efforts.

You think my ridiculous speculation is wrong because something would have happened and it hasn't. Is that what "logical" means? Don't waste any more of your brainpower on this example, I'm already having a discussion with Ottava in another thread.

You jumped on something that Gomi posted (perhaps seriously, perhaps not) and, without even bothering to check it out, put some completely half-assed speculation on one of the world's most visited websites. You appear to be acting out of some form of personal malice of the common Wikipedia variety (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Barbara_Bauer_Literary_Agency for another great example).


Posted by: Larry Sanger

Mmm. Drusilla! Crazy, but sexy!

Have they no respect for the dead?

Posted by: Detective

QUOTE(thekohser @ Wed 9th November 2011, 2:54pm) *

QUOTE(Michaeldsuarez @ Wed 9th November 2011, 9:43am) *

...backed by her birth certificate...


Maybe it could say, "backed by what is likely a forged or altered birth certificate..."?

I don't think that the BLP policy allows unsourced suggestions that someone has forged an official document or knowingly used a forged official document. Indeed, I hope the WR policy doesn't allow it either.

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(Detective @ Fri 11th November 2011, 6:45am) *

QUOTE(thekohser @ Wed 9th November 2011, 2:54pm) *

QUOTE(Michaeldsuarez @ Wed 9th November 2011, 9:43am) *

...backed by her birth certificate...


Maybe it could say, "backed by what is likely a forged or altered birth certificate..."?

I don't think that the BLP policy allows unsourced suggestions that someone has forged an official document or knowingly used a forged official document. Indeed, I hope the WR policy doesn't allow it either.


I guess I needed to add a laugh.gif or maybe a evilgrin.gif to my post?

Posted by: dogbiscuit

It is an interesting one though, because it turns several issues upside-down.

To me the fundamental point is that Wikipedians have set their minds to being the upholders of the truth, even though it is verifiability that is the test. They have moved into investigation rather than passive regurgitators of other information, there is a hint of Original Research here.

I don't have a total sympathy for JL - in fact in the UK, what she is doing is arguably unlawful under the Fraud Act of 2002 - any wrong statement with the intent of financial gain is captured by the act - and it is the misleading statement that is the criminal act, not the financial gain. Suing someone for revealing what is in fact a matter of public record (in the UK) also seems rather bizarre. On the other hand, she has a moral point: if people discriminate on her age rather than her performances, then she has a claim that it is unfair for people to undermine her method of dealing with this discrimination.

If, say, Private Eye was pursuing this, then we would see it as appropriate to that publication, and although sometimes we don't like the media sitting in judgment, but somehow it seems uncomfortable that some anonymous band are sitting their interfering with someone else's life. If it were Private Eye, you could see that she could discuss it with them and say "Yes, you've found me out, but this is why I am doing it." and then Private Eye might decide it was just a spiteful story rather than some Sword of Truth investigation. Wikipedia cannot conceive of applying that sort of judgement.

In the end, what is the point? How does the world gain from this information? Are we doing anyone a service by protecting them from the misrepresentation of her age - as long as she is using her correct age in contractual agreements (including insurance cover for her acting engagements) then it is hard to see that this is makes a difference to the world. We can see that there is harm and we can also see that Wikipedia is incapable of understanding that determining cases by their arbitrary rule book does not allow for common sense, because there is always the next nerd coming along to open up the can of worms again.