Talk:Diane Kruger/Archive 1

Archive 1

old comments

She's now divorced from her husband, Guillaume Canet. The break-up happened in December 2005. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.67.91.225 (talk • contribs) 15:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Another little problem, the Piano Player starring Kruger, Lambert ans Dennis Hopper is not the same as the Piano Player (la pianiste), and wasn't shown in cinema. Besides it is a coincidence that in both films, the personnage is named Erika. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rob1bureau (talk • contribs) 20:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

correction

Someone added: "She is dating Joshua Jackson. and shes hot". While it may be true, it had to be removed. Sorry. Gigakight (talk) 08:47, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Personal life

She "follows a Catholic religion". Is there more than one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noonand (talk • contribs) 23:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Early life

This is the first time that I have read this article and I have just now read this comment:

Diane did not drink alcohol until she was 20, because she saw the negative influence of alcohol on her father.

This is massively judgmental and quite irrelevant to the subject matter.... whether at the back end or at the start of an article, in this instance. It may or may not be true. We are talking of a big budget actress here so I am sure that her publicist can verify it as true (as can the supporting article).

But who cares. I am sure that a newspaper can adduce evidence to show that Ms Kruger slept with a pink teddy bear when she was really little. This stuff is trivial. I propose that the whole sentence be deleted on the basis of relevance (however accurate). Kind regards--Calabraxthis ^(talk) 21:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

The main photo

It's gone back and forth quite a bit. Perhaps we should take a vote? --Muboshgu (talk) 12:43, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

file:Diane Kruger 66ème Festival de Venise (Mostra) 2 color.jpg is plainly a clearer image; the redlink accounts that keep sticking the poor photo back in are simply being disruptive, with the latest one a rather clear SPA/Sock. Cheers, Jack Merridew 19:05, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

First of all, I'd like for us to ignore the shenanigans that have been going on here, and just focus on the images.

Now, from a technical point of view, of the two images in question the Venice image is larger, better lit, better focussed and the colour looks more natural, so I would support its use over the Cannes one. Aesthetically, I also find that Ms. Kruger is more attractive in the first picture, although that is more subjective and a secondary concern.

I would say that were it not for the unfortunate shadows I would have definitely suggested that we go with the other image from Venice (which used to be below the infobox), as that is otherwise the best of the bunch. AJCham 04:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Wait a minute... I once said I wasn't sure? I thought I always preferred the properly lit photo. I'm going to say that April 14 post was made by Jack when he was running out of this account :P --Muboshgu (talk) 04:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Someone changed the main photo back to the over lit version without seeking consensus. It may be the same old forces again. Anyone else watching the page, please be alert. --Muboshgu (talk) 19:24, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Diane Kruger. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100131051701/http://professionalwatches.com/2009/05/new_boutique_diane_kruger_help.html to http://professionalwatches.com/2009/05/new_boutique_diane_kruger_help.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:02, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Diane Kruger. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120524235524/http://www.festival-cannes.com/en/article/58948.html to http://www.festival-cannes.com/en/article/58948.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:27, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

BLPN case filed

Since the ADHD issue has popped up again, I have escalated the concerns to WP:BLPN to get more eyes on the situation. —C.Fred (talk) 15:26, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

ADHD

Why is this being continually removed? It's not the greatest source, so if a better one is found that would be good, but that doesn't mean the whole thing has to go. It's not like ADHD is being used to smear her in any POV way. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:07, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

100% agreed, by the way, there's only one person who removes it. It's not "biaised" like this person said, and the source seems OK, even thought it's not the best one on earth. It's a better source than a lot of accepted sources on Wikipedia. ~ ~ Vokkare (talk) 16:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

(@ Vokkare and Mobushgu, please stop posting sensitive information without giving a proper reference. when you say someone has a disease, it is a very sensitive issue, and you must give a strong reference. Middle-king (talk) 18:41, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia policies about reverts + this source is OK. You're the only one who sees a problem with this reference. ~ ~ Vokkare (talk) 21:48, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, the source is not okay. There's no information present at http://adhdwomenlife.741.com about who created the site, so it has to be treated as a self-published source. As such, an SPS cannot be used to make statements about a third party, per WP:V: "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." (emphasis original). Tabercil (talk) 22:12, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, that explanation works for me. Middle-king, next time you have an issue like this, present it on a talk page with policy that backs you up, rather than removing content in a manner that can be construed as vandalism. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:24, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Same with me, I was a bit upset by Middle-King's way of reverting, and by his accusations towards me on Tabercil's talk page. Still, I disagree with these explanations, but I have to respect them. ~ ~ Vokkare (talk) 02:51, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the source is not okay. There's no evidence of an editorial review policy or the like at the adhdwomenlife.741.com site, so the site itself is not a reliable source. They don't cite their sources, so we can't go back a level to find a reliable source.

WP:BLP is pretty straightforward in cases like this: if the assertion isn't backed up by a reliable source, it must be removed. —C.Fred (talk) 20:01, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

And I have spent some time looking for a reliable source - couldn't find one myself. Tabercil (talk) 21:33, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm the one who just re-added this to the article, I'm sorry, I didn't know this already had been discussed. The reason why it is hard to source that is that Diane has only talked about it in a french interview (I saw it) for the movie "pieds nus sur les limaces" so the english media haven't really been aware of it, but it's still real. But if you think this is a BLP issue since it's not really well sourced in english, I understand and I'll leave it out. I just wanted to specify that my goal wasn't to "spam" or "spread false informations" like someone said on Tabercil's talk page, I'm not that kind of person at all, please be careful before accusing people. Sorry for my english btw, I speak french mainly. 50.117.56.89 (talk) 05:50, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

It was the long version of this interview : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9v26oPykYs , if anyone can find it. 50.117.56.89 (talk) 06:18, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

ADHD is a specific medical condition, and thus requires very strong sourcing. The one interview, alas, fails that test. Collect (talk) 17:42, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

So you're basically saying that she is herself not a good source concerning her diagnosis? Brritna456 (talk) 17:29, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

That is not what I wrote, and I suggest you not use straw men as your basis for commenting here. Collect (talk) 21:05, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Diane Kruger. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141023045817/http://www.pageantopolis.com/Model/elite.htm to http://www.pageantopolis.com/Model/elite.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110905233020/http://www.maxim.com/amg/girls/articles/92466/2005-hot-100.html to http://www.maxim.com/amg/girls/articles/92466/2005-hot-100.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:28, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Diane Kruger. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6Ho3xfiD0?url=http://www.bambi-awards.com/history/past-winners to http://www.bambi-awards.com/history/past-winners

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:21, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Norman Reedus

I don't know what it is with y'all. These two are literally kissing on the red carpet,, going on lovers' holidays, living together, etc. The only "gossip" here is that she's allegedly pregnant with her first child by him. So best believe, when they so-called "verbally" (or whatever sates your "policy") confirm their relationship I will be placing it back into the article.Trillfendi (talk) 02:27, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

References

Missing 2003 film?

Isn't the filmography missing the 2003 film The Target? --Mortense (talk) 01:22, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

@Mortense: Seems to be an American title for Jean-Pierre Roux's The Piano Player.[1][2]. Mathew5000 (talk) 19:51, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Film set in psychiatric hospital

In this chat segment from The Late Show with Stephen Colbert (episode of 13 December 2018) Kruger says that her very first movie was a French film where she played a girl in a mental hospital, and other than her all the cast of the film were nonprofessionals. But she doesn't mention the title of the film, and it isn't currently listed in her filmography in this article or on IMDb, as far as I can see. Mathew5000 (talk) 20:16, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Nationality vs. Citizenship

I am a bit confused by the information in the box, which reads: "Nationality German"; "Citizenship Germany United States". What does that really mean? She has two citizenships. So, why would she then not have a U.S. nationality? Our modern understanding of nationality is not much different from citizenship, isn't it? 80.71.142.166 (talk) 18:26, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm wondering about this too. The article also says she has "French nationality, but this isn't explained." Rlitwin (talk) 16:38, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Last name

Did she legally change her last name to Kruger, or is that just a stage name/pseudonym? —C.Fred (talk) 22:46, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

First sentence

My edit has been reverted but I think it's unnecessary to say "German and American" instead of simply "German". She was born and raised in West Germany. She didn't hold US citizenship when she first gained notability and, more importantly, still holds German citizenship. Shall we start an RfC? Thedarkknightli (talk) 09:34, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Request for comment

Should the first sentence say "German and American" or "German"? Thedarkknightli (talk) 15:37, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

• I lean just "German". ~ HAL333 21:51, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
• Perhaps, simply "German-born actress" as is done in the Albert Einstein article. Or the nationalities could be omitted since they are already given in the infobox. The "German and American" structure is a bit clunky. --Guest2625 (talk) 00:29, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

  I agree "German-born actress" seems to be a good fit as Guest2625 pointed out. BogLogs (talk) 09:11, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

  I like "German-born" too. ~ HAL333 22:49, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

• German-American or German and American - she is a dual citizen. "German-born" is complete-nonsense --FMSky (talk) 09:34, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
• I agree with "German-born" or simply "German". Though, perhaps her citizenship could be noted somewhere in the opening section. Clear Looking Glass (talk) 10:02, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
• Not German-American on its own - it's too ambiguous (DeNiro is an Italian-American actor?) and can refer to 'heritage', dual citizenship, or having parents from two countries. German-born has the advantage of identifying why/how someone acquired dual-citizenship, though that 'dual-ness' or additional citizenship should be made explicit.Pincrete (talk) 14:17, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
• Just German, her American citizenship seems to be trivial and not really of relevance to the article beyond a note.--Ortizesp (talk) 03:59, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
• German-American, and maybe explain just after where she was born and when she became a dual citizen. Iraniangal777 (talk) 08:37, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
• Just American as per MOS:NATIONALITY-- Most living people will be described with a single nationality, the one connected to the place where they currently resideWritethisway (talk) 18:55, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
• German and American - Reviewing MOS:NATIONALITY, this should follow the example of Peter Lorre. She's a person who established a career in Europe as a German, then emigrated to the United States and was naturalized and continued her career, and is thus known as both a German actor and as an American actor. The use of 'and' again prevents the introduction of ethnicity or birth. Nemov (talk) 15:50, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

• Hi, I'm not the person who started the RfC, but is there enough votes to gather a consensus and close this? It's been about two months since it started. Clear Looking Glass (talk) 22:38, 28 January 2023 (UTC)