Talk:Leelee Sobieski: Difference between revisions

Relation to King Sobieski

Lest someone come by and reinsert Ms. Sobieski's publicist's claim of descent from Jan Sobieski: Jan Sobieski had one son, who had two daughters. None of the king's greatgrandchildren bore the name Sobieski. -- Someone else 02:09 4 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Ms. Sobieski is indeed related to King John III Sobieski but not a direct descendant. Her ancestry goes back to King John's father's brother from whom she descends. NightCrawler 02:41, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

King John's father's brother ? Do you mean one of the redlinks on Marek Sobieski ? Possibly another "John" Sobieski, the King's uncle with the same name. Besides Jakub Sobieski, that's the only other son listed there. -- 199.71.174.100 00:29, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I would like to note, that although she is indeed related to King John III Sobieski, he was not the last king of Poland, as the last King of Poland was King Stanisław August Poniatowski.

Please don't add Category:House of Sobieski. There is no proof that Leelee is related to King Sobieski; the only claim to the contrary comes from a fan website of hers! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:02, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree - There's never been any documentary evidence presented to prove her claim, and so it should be treated with extreme caution. As pointed out above, the only reference appears to be on a fansite which does not meet Wikipedia rules for reliability etc. It needs to be pointed out in the article that it is an unsubstantiated claim, and I've edited the article accordingly... Emma white20 (talk) 16:26, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

With reference to recent edits, as I've already stated above, her claim lacks documentary evidence, and this needs to be stated in the article, so please don't remove the comment pointing this out. If you are unhappy at this being stated, then the whole section concerning the disputed claim should be removed, and no mention at all made of it in the article - Having the claim, but not pointing out the lack of evidence, shows clear bias towards the claim, and the claim MUST be balanced by mention of the lack of evidence supporting it. Emma white20 (talk) 00:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the whole point is that if there is no evidence, then reliable sources should be available to show that efforts have been made to refute the claim. Otherwise, it is only something she said. There is no mandate to balance out a statement made by the article subject by presenting anything that refutes the statement, especially when there is no source offered for the counter statement. A statement asserting an absence of something without sourcing to support that the absence has been reliably noted qualifies as original research. That doesn't meet the WP:NEUTRAL tenet, which states "The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with the conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic found in reliable sources... all of the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader. And there is bias in the statement "although no evidence in support of this claim has ever been presented." It implies that there has been a request/demand/need for evidence to support it or that it is necessary, and that perhaps she has refused to do so. Without a citation to support the statement you keep including, it's not appropriate. At this point, WP:BRD takes over. Please stop returning this statement when it has been contested, and until a consensus has been determined about it. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I totally disagree with most of what you say above - Simply stating that there's no evidence for something doesn't imply that proof has been requested, it just says that no supporting proof can be found and warns that the claim must be treated as just that, and not blindly accepted as a proven fact (as it seems to be by many people). And a simple statement like that doesn't qualify as "original research"... I notice that you don't dispute the unsupported and unreferenced statement that it was her (claimed) fluency in French that won her several movie roles - Why is that any different? Anyway, I've carefully re-read things, and realised that, while everyone seems to make the assumption that she seems to be claiming a heritage directly relating to John III, mention of the word "uncle" suggests otherwise, so I looked carefully at the other Sobieski articles on Wikipedia, and realised that there is a serious problem with her claim - If John III was a distant uncle, then that implies she claims a heritage dating back to his brother, Marek. But he died childless, and so she can't be related to him, and this casts serious doubt on her claim. This childlessness is something which can be clearly shown via the Sobieski family tree, and is no doubt mentioned in numerous books on John III (none of which I have access to...). Up to now, the only 'references' I've found have been other Wikipedia articles, which I know we can't use, but I'm sure someone can provide a suitable book reference if we give them time to do so. So I've reworded things to include this new information, including links to other relevant Wikipedia articles. Emma white20 (talk) 14:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

You can disagree all you want, but I'm quoting you relevant Wikipedia policy regarding covering a statement by the article subject. There is no mandate to dispute the statement, as made by her. The addition you made is formulating evidence to dispute her statement, part and parcel of original research and cannot stand per WP:BLP. It is your synthesis and is inappropriate and unsupported. I am going to open a request for comments on this since you aren't adhering to policy regarding inclusion of a statement by the article subject without the need to dispute it. Also, you were requested to stop editing this statement until discussion reached consensus, per WP:BRD, which you can't seem to do. As for removing the content regarding her roles, it can easily be reworded and not just cut. Wildhartlivie (talk) 16:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you are using far too broad an interpretation of the term "original research", and the recent edit doesn't qualify, as all it is doing is providing additional links to further information in other Wikipedia articles. If anyone should stop editing, it's you - Your edit history in this article marks you out to me as a possible POV pusher who is unwilling to accept other people making anything more than the most minor edits and uses Wikipedia guidelines as a club to try and intimidate them when they write something you disagree with. But as the statement itself has been shown time and time again to be controversial (see the other posts on this talk page), maybe the whole thing should be removed? - If the comment isn't there, then there can't be a dispute about it, can there? (As the guidelines say, "Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately".) JS3C (talk) 14:14, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, before things get too heated, let me just say that I think we have two or three quite strong personalities butting heads here, and maybe you guys should let things cool down a little before taking things any further. As for the question of the article content, I agree that the comment has been quite controversial ever since being added to the article, and I also agree that it should be completely removed in order to prevent future problems like this. The guidelines say that controversial material (mainly meaning unsourced or poorly sourced) should be removed? Well, the quoted comment makes quite a big claim, without any supporting evidence, and no evidence can be found either way in any reliable references. Other things have been removed from this article on the grounds that there's no evidence (even when references meeting WP:RS and the other guidelines have been given), or that it is irrelevant, so why should this comment be allowed to remain when the claim it makes is clearly hotly disputed and causes nothing but trouble? To me, a comment like that comes under the category of "Trivia", and as has been said time and again by one of the involved parties here, Wikipedia is not a place for trivia! Getting rid of all mention of the comment will end this situation here and now, and seems to me to be the most sensible solution. Get rid of the comment, kiss and make up, and let's all get back to improving what is presently far too short an article about a very talented young lady! 84.66.138.67 (talk) 15:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

There are nuances of meaning between statements like "she was born in 1982" (which asserts a fact), "she said she was born in 1982", "she claims she was born in 1982" (both of which suggest some degree of doubt) and "she claims she was born in 1982 but no documentation has been found". The phrase "no documentation has been found" would be a separate statement in the article which undermines the previous claim, and so makes the author of that claim look bad. If simply repeating the claim with the word "claim" doesn't satisfy enough people, then the natural solution is to leave it out entirely. Editors have no obligation to repeat every single factoid possible about a subject. Especially if the claim wasn't made often, it may not be very important. However, if the subject makes some claim multiple times, and no legitimate source has published anything contrary, the situation may be different. Gimmetrow 18:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

(ooutdent) I would much rather the content be removed than to have original research, which is exactly what the additions by Emma white20 concerning refuting a statement made by the article subject are. As for the comments about me by JS3C, that's more than bordering on personal attacks by someone who posts "I'm new here - Please be gentle with me!!" on a userpage. I have made 12 edits to the article on nine different dates, the first 3 1/2 months ago when I removed unsourced statements that were eventually removed by someone else about appearances on The Tonight Show, unencyclopedic trivia about when she got her ears pierced, an edit that only cleaned up reference format styles, one that removed a redundant category, a couple regarding the use of fansites for sourcing, and the issues over the addition by Emma white20. Some of the edits have actually been in support of positions taken by Emma white20, and some in support of edits by Gimmetrow. There is absolutely no basis or excuse for painting me as a POV pusher and I do consider these statements a personal attack. I would suggest JS3C actually review WP:SYN and what qualifies as original research, especially as it pertains to a biography of a living person. I most certainly am not using "Wikipedia guidelines as a club to try and intimidate them when they write something you disagree with", I am quoting basic Wikipedia policy regarding content, sourcing and proper editor conduct. But thanks for your observations. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:12, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the disputed sentence, and Wildhart, you weren't pushing any POV. Hopefully that resolves the specific issue. On a general note, I think we could be a bit more careful about "controversy". If a "controversy" is just something a blogger or two mention, then there isn't really any verifiable (citable) opposing views we can mention in an article. Gimmetrow 22:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

She is not directly related to the King, but to his brother. There, end of story. Norum 12:14, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Swiss and Dutch?

I can find sources for Sobieski's Jewish and Polish heritage, but does anyone have a source for Swiss and Dutch? (IMDB don't count). Also, does anyone know "how Polish" her father is? Contrary to what we had up on our page for a year or so and what is now all over the web because of that, I don't believe both of his parents were Polish. Mad Jack 05:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

What has given you reason to believe that? Michael 06:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Believe what? That his parents weren't Polish? I'm 99% sure that's the case. I've gone over every reliable detail on Sobieski, and none mentioned any Polish ancestry except for the relation to the King. I'm sure, of course, that based on that relation Sobieski's father has some Polish ancestry - probably way back - but he is always described as a "total Frenchman" in articles. Mad Jack 06:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

They use that term? Michael 07:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

No, but I got a lot of references, often by Leelee herself, as to how her father is "Very French", etc. Her paternal grandfather has a farm out in the country in France - stuff like that - obviously the family's been there a long, long time. Mad Jack 07:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

If her father and grandfather are "fully" French, then probably they had a distant Polish mercenary ancestor that served in Napoleon’s cavalry. Napoleon had a large number of Polish Cavalry Units that served alongside the French Army as well Irish Foot Infantry units. This was before the French Foreign Legion was established. Maybe that’s where the surname came from. If that’s the case then she’s not Polish only her distant merccenary ancestor is Polish. There was a U.S. Marine Corps Colonel that served in the O.S.S. in WW2 occupied France helping the French resistance forces. He was full French-American but he had a Spanish surname. His name was Col. Peter Ortiz. He only had distant Spanish ancestry. --James 08:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I have a German last name (from my father, obviously). Yet, all of our ancestors have lived in France since the year 1621. Our genealogy tree on my father side shows that the guy who gave us our family name was a German scholar who was sent to France by his parents to study in Sorbonne (Paris University). He was born in 1604 in a small town near Hannover. He never left France and married a French girl. I would never consider myself anything else other than French (even though I actually live in Germany). My culture, my language, my passport, my tastes are French, although one of my many ancestors was born in Germany (in Hannover, to be exact). Surnames don't mean much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.193.63.170 (talk) 21:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I have a photo of Leelee window shopping on Santa Monica blvd. in L.A. Can I give this picture without having to go through the trouble of making a wikipedia account?

Fanzine entry?

Since when does going to Shakespeare in the Park and art galleries make you a bohemian?? This entire page reads like a fan site. Gag.68.36.127.193 01:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

"great, great, great, great uncle"

The implication that her "great, great, great, great uncle" was alive in the 17th century is absurd. Assuming an obscenely long generation-time of 50 years, the earliest her great, great, great, great uncle could have been born is 1733. Perhaps she made the claim, but shouldn't an encyclopedia be based more closely on fact than on the claims of its subjects?12.217.244.228 (talk) 03:07, 17 February 2008 (UTC)Daniel

I think it's clear that the number of "great"s was not supposed to be exact. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 06:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

birth year

Born in 1982 or in 1983 ? The movie Jungle 2 Jungle was shot in summer 96, if she were born in 82 she would be 14 at this time but she looks 12-13 in the movie, so I think she was born in 1983.

If you can't tell the difference between 12-13, do you think you can tell the difference between 13-14? What's wrong with you? IMDB says 1982 74.138.155.68 (talk) 03:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

No, IMDB says 1983. The first source doesn't say anything about her birth year, and the second source is a non-digital one. Changing it to 1983. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.187.186.52 (talk) 01:56, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Leeleesobieski.com

Can people please not list the website leeleesobieski.com as her "official" website. This is a fan-run website, and the only "official" connection it has to her is that she sometimes posts on the forum there. Sandi saraya (talk) 22:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Post 9/11 Tonight Show poetry

Can people please stop reinserting the references to her reading a poem on the Tonight Show after 9/11. There's no verifiable evidence that she appeared on the show around that time, so unless you can provide some evidence which meets WP:RS, this is a totally unsupported claim that has no place here. 81.79.132.84 (talk) 16:03, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

It was "Come Together: A Night for John Lennon's Words and Music" and not "The Tonight Show" as referenced above.173.111.138.222 (talk) 00:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)Ray

Well, there was [1]. Nevertheless, it appears this is mentioned mostly in contexts negative to the subject of the article. Gimmetrow 01:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Sources for date of birth

Can people please stop using the website Leeleesobieski.com as a reference for her date of birth. This is a self-published fan site, and as such has no editorial review and does not meet the Wikipedia guidelines on reliable sources (WP:RS). Additionally, as a self-published site, it also falls foul of WP:SPS too. All the sources I've found which do meet WP:RS clearly state that her date of birth is 1982, not 1983. If you wish to list her date of birth as 1983, please provide verifiable sources which meet the Wikipedia guidelines on verifiability (WP:V) and reliability (WP:RS), without being self-published and excluded under the rules on self-published sources (WP:SPS). 84.66.99.77 (talk) 11:03, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

IMDB says 1983, is that reliable enough for you? And I see people has used the fansite in references for other things so why not refer to that for her date of birth? Furthermore, if she published it herself then it IS the most reliable source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.19.33.47 (talk) 01:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

No, IMDB is not considered a reliable source for things other than perhaps screen/tv credits. Anyone can submit corrections and it is not clear how IMDB vets such corrections. And because a celebrity says that his or her birthdate is something does not necessarily mean that is correct. There is no indication that leeleesobieski.com is her website, it gives every appearance of being a fansite, which is subject to error. Please read WP:RS regarding reliable sources. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:37, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

You're right - Leeleesobieski.com, despite the domain name, is just a self-published fansite, and so does not qualify as a reliable source under WP:RS. The only "official" connection it has with her is that they claim Leelee has posted in person on their forum, although there is again no evidence that this is actually the case and you just have to take the site owner's word that it really is her. And you're also right about IMDb not being considered a reliable source, so what they say there is irrelevant. The only sources which qualify as reliable and verifiable say 1982, and so until someone can come up with verifiable sources which say otherwise, that's the best info we have. Emma white20 (talk) 09:21, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

You know, there aren't really any good sources either way. The best one is the People article, and it's indirect. I find it curious that anyone has a strong opinion for 1982 since I didn't see much support for retaining 1982 for the last few months. Gimmetrow 02:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Saying IMDB isn't a verifiable source is about the dumbest thing I ever heard. A multi-million dollar business detailing every major actors' careers down to the tiniest detail isn't reliable information? If I'm doing the math correctly, June 10 splits the year right down the middle, so that People article has a 50/50 chance of being right about her age that year. You people DO realize a person's age changes during the year and doesn't change on New Years Day, right?75.187.186.52 (talk) 03:36, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

"And because a celebrity 'says' that his or her birthdate is something does not necessarily mean that is correct." - If a person isn't a verifiable source for their own birthdate, then how exactly is People magazine more credible? Sounds like we'll need a notarized copy of their birth certificate filed with the Wikipedia offices. You were probably one of those "birthers" that was insisting Obama was born in Kenya. *rolls eyes* 75.187.186.52 (talk) 03:41, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

You're right that it seems a bit of an anomaly that a major site such as IMDb isn't regarded as a reliable source - It seemed strange to me when I first started as an editor here. Because submissions to IMDb have to be reviewed and approved by an editor before going live on the site, you'd think that it meets WP:RS. But the truth is that the fact-checking those editors do is very poor, and that results in some incorrect info making it onto the site. At the same time, some correct info gets rejected and never appears, despite being fully supported by verifiable evidence. One example of that is my own experience, as I sometimes submit stuff there. For ages, I've been trying to add a new show credit to one British TV presenter's entry there, and the supporting evidence I've used includes the official BBC webpage for the show in question, which you would think is pretty strong evidence. Despite that, it's been rejected several times by the editors there without explanation over the past few months. So the general consensus on Wikipedia is that, while IMDb is usually pretty reliable for stuff like filmographies, which can be easily verified by finding the DVD of the production in question and looking at the cast list, biographical info and that sort of thing is considered a lot less reliable due to poor fact-checking, and so IMDb shouldn't be used as a source for that. Emma white20 (talk) 11:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Google news directed me to this link, posted today:

http://www.eonline.com/uberblog/b158582_leelee_sobieskis_merry_christmas_baby.html

It is Friday, December 18th, and they refer to her as "the 26 year-old actress." This confirms her birthdate as 1983. E! online isn't any more or less reputable than People magazine. 75.187.186.52 (talk) 05:46, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

And same source [2] said "27-year-old actress", too. There aren't really good sources either way, but if at least one other editor considers the "Ashley Fultz'" E!-uberblog story a reliable source (note how infrequently stories are penned under that name), I have no objection to listing both years. From People there are [3] and [4] which say "Sobieski, 27", and [5] which refers to "The 27-year old..."; going back further there is also [6]. And I'll grant these are potentially ambiguous given how close it would be to the age-change, but [7], [8] and [9], published in May 1999, refer to her as 16. Indeed, reviews of Joan of Arc (miniseries) seem to routinely mention her age when the miniseries was made: [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]. Given these, it seems difficult to argue for suppressing June 1982. Gimmetrow 07:44, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the evidence is definitely strongest for 1982 - That's what all of the earliest sources seem to point to, and those are the ones where you'd expect the writers to be relying more on info from her management, rather than getting it from online sources (of which there would have been much fewer than there are now, as it was so early in her career with few major roles to really bring attention). The evidence for 1983 certainly isn't as convincing, and definitely called into question by the May 1999 NY Times articles giving her age at the time as 16, which would make her 17 in June 1999, and so born in 1982. IIRC, even IMDb listed 1982 for a long time, and it's only fairly recently (past couple of years) that it was changed to 1983 - Anyone else remember that, or am I just imagining it??... Emma white20 (talk) 16:04, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

In what world are two tabloid magazines considered "sources"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.97.49.190 (talk • contribs)

In the entertainment world, celebrity magazines can be reasonable sources, especially when the same content presented in People, E! and Entertainment Weekly appeared in a division of the NYTimes. Gimmetrow 02:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you seriously meaning that tabloids are more reliable than a persons own words? Unless we can't provide a birth certificate or something similar I think we shall go on what her own words are. Molgera (talk) 16:06, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

You're referring to an alleged interview at a fan site. Not good enough. There was extensive coverage of her age during some of her work. Gimmetoo (talk) 16:43, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Gimmetoo, I have to say it. You're on the wrong side of history here. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 16:59, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Veromi.net lists her as 28, which makes her being born in 1983. Molgera (talk) 19:53, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sources differ, thus we present both possibilities. A fansite is not considered a reliable source for WP. Gimmetoo (talk) 20:20, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Veromi.net IS a reliable source. It's taken from the public records ans is more reliable than all the tabloids together. Did you even click on the link? I've given strong evidence for that she is born in 1983, so stop please messing around. Veromi.net has been approoved earlier as a reliable source. Molgera (talk) 20:32, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

The key fact here is that reliable sources differ. The database site would at best be another source. Gimmetoo (talk) 21:13, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

The really, really, wrong side of history. Way off. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 21:14, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

That appears to be an ad hominem statement, but I have no idea what it means. Gimmetoo (talk) 21:19, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Are you stupid in some way? There is no other reliable source than the public records. The information from the datebase is taken from the IRS and not from tabloids that just copy eachother off. Reliable sources would differ IF we didn't had the datebase, but now we do. We don't need any other proof. The database is not just "another source". It's the proof we need to clearly verify her age and in lack of a birth certificate it's the best proof we got. Molgera (talk) 21:22, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Public records are WP:PRIMARY sources, and can lack fact-checking. It is often not possible to state unequivocally that the record found is the person in question. Are you saying a database is unequivocally the final word? Gimmetoo (talk) 21:47, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

What I was trying to put forward is that it's obvious she was born in 1983, and sooner than later that's what the article will say, one way or the other, even if I don't add another word to this conversation. That's what I mean when I say you're on the wrong side of history. Some common sense should be applied to Wikipedia policies (as I think is mentioned in Wikipedia policies). Is it possible that the web site faked the interview? Sure, there is a glimmer of a chance of that. But it's pretty clear they didn't, and it's just nitpicking to try and present some kind of "balanced" approach to this when none is necessary. And I'll leave that one there. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 21:48, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Public Records have been approved all the time in many other articles and No, they can't lack fact-checking because they are taken directley from the IRS and other authorities and their information can't be wrong. So, yes, I would say it's unequivocally the final word unless a birth certificate says other wise, but that's not likable. To claim that it's not possible to state unequivocally that the record is the person in question is the most dumbest thing I've ever heard. Espacially in this case since you can see that the parents are Elizabeth Solomon and Jean Sobieski. To question that is OR. In many cases, when DOB or DOD is twisted, public records have settled the whole thing. Molgera (talk) 22:32, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

What fact-checking is done with this resource? How can you be so sure it is correct in every way? When I look up my name in that very database, it returns incorrect info. I have an idea why, but it doesn't make the info any less incorrect. According to you, then, the info in that database should unequivocally determine info about me? Gimmetoo (talk) 23:06, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Alternative Lead Images

• 
• 
• 

Categories "Jewish actors", "Polish-American Jews", "American Jews"

According to a source used in the article, Sobieski says that her maternal grandfather was Jewish, and that she is "proud of her Jewish roots". Can editors here explain how this justifies adding the categories "Jewish actors", "Polish-American Jews", "American Jews"? Better yet, given that this is a WP:BLP, can editors here provide any reliable sources for those categories? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I reverted it because "Jewish" is not being used here as a matter of her religious preference, but of ethnic heritage. Her mother is Jewish, thus Sobieski is in fact of Jewish heritage. That fact is reliably sourced in the article. She's an actress, she is of Jewish heritage and she is of Polish descent. That can all be source to one reference here. This article is closely watched by oversight and there is next to nothing that I'm aware of in it that hasn't been already fact checked. I'm wondering why all of these categories based on Jewish ethnic heritage are suddenly being removed, for that matter. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:01, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

For better or worse, we don't have any "Category:Of Jewish heritage". Instead we have fairly specific categories; "American Jews", "Polish-American Jews", etc. Having a Jewish ancestor doesn't necessarily make one a Jew, and there's no indication that Sobieski considers herself to be a Jew. By the way, "Polish-American Jew" really means a Polish Jew who became an American (the reverse rarely if ever happens). Polish Jews are a specific sub-ethnicity of Jews, with their own Yiddish dialect, liturgy, customs, foods, etc. It doesn't really mean someone who has a Jewish ancestor and a Polish ancestor and is an American citizen. In any event, as with all contentious categories related to biographies of living people, the solution is simple, and always the same: WP:V. Just find some reliable sources stating that she is an "American Jew", a "Polish-American Jew" or a "Jewish actor", and we can put this whole issue to bed. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

If that is the case, I'd suggest adding a statement to all the categories mentioning the word "Jew" or "Jewish", because that is how it is being used. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

To me (and, I'm sure, most other people), the categories clearly imply that someone is Jewish by religion, not by heritage. As there is no reliable documentary evidence that she is Jewish by religion, I'd say that the categories have no place here and should not be included in this article. Basically, having these categories here is like saying that someone born in America is British because they have one British grandparent - Plainly, they aren't British, but they do have a partially-British heritage through their grandparent. Unless we can find some reliable evidence that she is Jewish by religion, then these categories should not be included. Yes, we can mention in the article that she has familial links to the Jewish religion, and also her comments about that link, but we shouldn't categorise her as an "American Jew" etc unless we have definite evidence that it is indeed the case. (And, personally, I'd class the Jewish Journal article as possible being a bit partisan, as it is apparently affiliated to the religion in question, and would be a lot more inclined to trust a totally secular source - And I'm not being anti-semitic or anything here, as I'd say exactly the same about (for instance) a source affiliated to the Catholic church making claims about someone alledged to be a Catholic where no such independant confirmation existed. For a source to be totally reliable, it needs to be clearly neutral, and that clear neutrality does not exist where we're talking about matters of a celebrity's personal religion and rely on sources apparently affiliated to the religion in question...) Emma white20 (talk) 15:15, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I've come across some similar over-applications, and would have to agree with the drift of Emma and Jay's comments. Though I'd tweak that to self-identification, rather than religious practice, as such. As mediated by suitable reliable sources, of course. I say this because there's a key difference between the Orthodox and Reform (at the least) criteria, so it's necessary to determine which of those to apply, which is generally going to come down to a particular person's alignment to one or the other (or none). I agree that it would be a good idea to document best practice in this area... as soon as people actually agree what it is. Smartiger (talk) 23:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The issue isn't really whether its Jewish by religion or ethnicity or heritage, but rather, whether or not reliable sources identify her as Jewish. If, as you say, she self-identifies as Jewish that would be fine too, but we don't have any reliable sources making that claim either. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:56, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

True - And all we have is her saying that she's "proud of her Jewish heritage", which is the same as a US citizen of Irish heritage saying that they're proud their heritage - Would you then class that person as being Irish? Until we have a reliable source where she states clearly that she is (or self-identifies as being) Jewish, I don't think the category should be included here. Emma white20 (talk) 21:39, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Birth year

Since there seems to be a stalemate in terms of her birth year, why not mention this unclear situation in the article? Insisting on 1982 makes it quite confusing for users of WP, if at the same time all other versions (e.g. German, French, Polish), the IMDB and several online sources (and those recently due to the birth of her daughter) use 1983? Just constantly reverting back and forth doesn't solve the issue. So why not make it clear that this matter is not absolutely verified and that it might be 1982 or 1983?--Mbmann (talk) 00:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

We don't use IMDB or other Wikipedia editions as a source. The birth date used in this article is sourced, twice. Besides that, neither the German, French nor Polish articles cite a source for the birthdate they give. How can we therefore use it an authoritative source? As far as I can see, there is no stalemate. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

To clear a birthyear issue

http://www.leeleesobieski.com/articles/eric/eric2.html

I needed to correct you on my birthday. You actually believe I'm a year older than I am. At the time, Stanley Kubrik was only seeing girls who were 14 for the role I ended up playing for Eyes Wide Shut.

So you were born in 83 then, no 82.

Correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SergeChel (talk • contribs) 12:20, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I would say that Sobieski's word that she was born in 1983 is more reliable than any other source, excluding a birth certificate. These other sources like People or others are not definitive in the least, and I don't see the point of repeating their 10 year-aged errors forever. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 18:55, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

While the statement on the interview page has a sense of plausibility, the website is a fansite, and that interview has been discussed before. Given that multiple sources that we consider reliable for entertainment biographies say something that conflicts, previous consensus on this page (See Talk:Leelee_Sobieski#Sources_for_date_of_birth for instance) is that a fansite doesn't trump reliable sources. In similar circumstances I generally advocate giving both years with a note for explanation; it looks like I tried that here before [15], but the approach wasn't adopted here. Gimmetoo (talk) 21:49, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Sun-Times article dated September 16, 2001 says she's 18, making it 1983. here Here's one that says she's 26 in September 2009 - here. The point is, you can find sources that say a lot of things. You can find many sources that say one thing over again, that doesn't make any of them right. Yes, I know it's a fansite, but do we really have any doubts about this interview? And since we can match this interview to reliable sources, like the ones I brought up, why go on with the 1982 thing? (BTW, I wasn't the anon who reverted this recently to 1983 - although I appreciate the help! Too bad the anon didn't fix the invisible databox, too) All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 04:35, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

And there are plenty of sources that say 1982 - more than enough that it shouldn't be suppressed. The solution I generally advocate is listing both, if you think 1983 has good enough refs too. That's not necessarily a given. Note that the Sun-Times article you reference from September 2001 says "at age 18" she did something (past-tense), but later the article refers to her as "the 19-year-old". And many editors seem to consider nydailynews (your second ref) an unreliable source. Gimmetoo (talk) 06:24, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Do you seriously think that the fansite faked the interview? Because if you don't, and we can match that to a reliable source (other sources say 26 - like these), what's the point of not putting up a fact that we know is both true and verifiable? All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 09:13, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

That one e-online link was noted in the discussion I linked above, 2 years ago. You would think, if that interview on a self-published site is such a clear correction, that *all* reliable sources would follow it. But most do not seem to. On the other hand, quite a big deal was made of her age when filming Joan of Arc. We shouldn't just ignore that because a self-published fansite has an "interview". Now, the interview may seem plausible and I don't have positive evidence that anything was faked, but 1) I have seen info on fansites faked, 2) WP has a rule about use of self-published sources, 3) past discussion here concluded that the interview page didn't overrule the vast majority of reliable sources. If we include information from a self-published fansite, it cannot justify suppressing multiple reliable sources. Gimmetoo (talk) 00:47, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Like I said before, in this case I'm OK with listing options allowing readers to make their own decisions, but I'm not OK with suppressing one sourced and widely-reported option without clear and definitive sources. According to the latest IP edit: "I've yet to find a reliable direct source listing her age as 1982. I take her own words, and the word of any publication made AFTER her correction to be the most accurate." The 2011 NYT "On This Day" [16] lists her at June 10, 1982 - and similar in 2010 [17] - well after the alleged "correction" from the "interview". Gimmetoo (talk) 02:32, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Helen Hunt

Normally this kind of trivia doesn't belong in an article, but given how many reliable sources [18] have stated that she looks like Helen hunt, WP:NPOV behooves us to include the information in some way. Perhaps mentioning that early in her career her appearance was compared to that of Helen Hunt.--Crossmr (talk) 08:51, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I came here to second this. I was just watching "Deep Impact" and wondered what the production date of the movie was because I could have sworn she looked like Helen Hunt.