Jump to content

Talk:Julie Christie

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Birthdate[edit]

Some sources seem to say she was born in 1940, including the birthdays column in today's Guardian - anybody know for sure? sjorford →•← 13:52, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The New York Times has her being born in both years [1]! Thincat 14:35, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The Telegraph has her age as 71, in a Today's Birthdays feature (dated 14 April 2011), that would mean she was born in 1940. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 18:46, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are reputable sources that give both dates, so in truth it could be either date. This issue is discussed further at User_talk:Betty_Logan/Archive_4#Julie_Christie. Until there is official confirmation one way or the other it's best that we retain both dates. Betty Logan (talk) 19:52, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's tough being born in a foreign country like India, the acutal year may never be known. Like Joan Crawford has absolutely no confirmed birth year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.88.29.11 (talk) 01:29, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Technical college in Brighton[edit]

The article City College Brighton And Hove lists her as an alumna. Any idea whether this can be sourced?Itsmejudith (talk)

Dame[edit]

I pretty sure Julie was knighted (damed?) at some point, but know none of the details. Adding "Dame" to the lead sentence for now. --jwandersTalk 09:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If she was made a Dame that would be a pretty big deal and should be easily established with a google check. I've tried and found no evidence. I'll remove it on this basis. If anyone can find anything on this, of course it should be put back. Rossrs (talk) 21:24, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article from the Daily Mail confirms that she was not honored before 2008 but there was speculation that she would be this year - [2]. That appears not to have happened. Rossrs (talk) 21:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Later work = Away From Her[edit]

Most of the "Later work" section is about "Away from her". I think it should either be split to 2 sections or shortened. Agreed? Thanks Kvsh5 (talk) 00:40, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strange revert[edit]

It seems that some edits were reverted that were done by a sock. They seemed like good edits though. Is there a valid reason for the revert?--Canoe1967 (talk) 13:54, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nop. No edits by that sock is good edits. Also, Wikipedia:BAN#Edits_by_and_on_behalf_of_banned_editors. Nymf hideliho! 15:09, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seems that rule says that if an editor is pissed off at a sock then they are allowed to revert all edits, except for typos. Seems like a bullshit rule to me to remove edits that improve the article and are verified, but I guess we have to follow it like all the other bullshit rules here. I won't bother with it then.--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:48, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Photo addition[edit]

Is there some reason why this good quality portrait was removed? As an actress, it seems much more relevant and better. If there's a consensus, I can add it. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:32, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that is a crappy image of her. If we could find her email her people may get us a better one to use. The last time I tried to replace a crappy blp image I got blocked so I would like to avoid an edit war on this one. Change it. If it is reverted than bring it up at blpn.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:51, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Memory Loss[edit]

I have removed this:

Christie suffers from a rare form of memory loss called autobiographic amnesia.[1] She said in 2002 that the condition became so severe that she's turned down offers from Hollywood producers and West End directors for fear of not being able to recall her lines.[1] "I'm not sure what [the condition] is, but it makes learning my lines very difficult, so I am happy to stay away from films and stage work. It's a bit sad. Now I can't remember any bad things, only the good things, if I can remember anything about my past at all."[2] Christie is quoted as saying that this story has been made up, invented on the basis of a jokey comment made in a radio interview.[3]

She has stated that her comments were misunderstood. Contrary to the implication of the original story, she has continued to act. In the absence of any other evidence, there doesn't seem to be any reason to give this story credence.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:37, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b "Julie Christie's Battle With Memory Loss", imdb.com, 22 April 2002.
  2. ^ I'm losing my memory says Julie Christie Daily Mail 22 April 2002
  3. ^ Tim Adams meets Julie Christie, theguardian.com, 1 April 2007.


Waterloo Sunset 'Terry and Julie'[edit]

By the Kinks is generally held to refer to Terence Stamp and Julie Christie, but I can't find a good reference.

86.187.162.7 (talk) 21:27, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Julie Christie. 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:

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) 06:31, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Julie Christie. 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:

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) 13:34, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Politics[edit]

Apart from the causes listed, she was certainly a member of one of the extreme left parties, either the Socialist Workers Party or another like it. Valetude (talk) 23:34, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox photo[edit]

For many years, the article used version 1 (updated to version 2 in 2013) of a photo (taken in 1997) of Julie Christie in the infobox, from 2011 until 2020. For a brief period in 2013 the main photo was replaced by a black & white still from Dr Zhivago. Version 2 was then replaced by the still again in 2020 before reverting back to version 2 in 2024.

There have been recent attempts to restore the black & white still ([3] & [4]) on the basis that the still is more "recognizable" and "had been in the article for years". The second reason does not carry much weight for me, since both photos have had long spells in the article, so they clearly both had a degree of consensus to endure in the article for so many years. The first reason is more complex; yes, it captures Christie when she was arguably at her most famous, but that is generally not how the criterion of "recognizability" is interpreted for people still in the public eye. For example, we don't have a photo of Harrison Ford taken in the 1970s–90s when he was at the height of his stardom, or Al Pacino for that matter, or Jane Fonda, or any number of living stars. A black & white still from 60 years ago arguably is not an appropriate representation of a person who is still alive today, and is not consistent with how other biographical articles represent their subjects in the infobox.

I am fairly open-minded on the issue since I can see the argument from both angles, and am happy to reconsider my position if someone can point me to a guideline or an authoritative discussion that takes an opposing position on this issue. As it stands, both photographs are in the article version I reverted to, with the b&w still in the section covering that period of Christie's career. Betty Logan (talk) 14:23, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this analysis, Betty. As one of the editors guilty of recent changes (albeit reversions), I am interested in any guidelines on this. It's clearly a question broader than just Julie Christie's infobox image, and probably broader than just film actors: what is the most representative and recognisable infobox image for anyone with a lengthy career in the public eye? I wasn't aware of the Ford/Pacino/Fonda infoboxes (it's debateable how much they are still in the public eye) , but have been involved, for example, in discussions about Bette Davis. IMO, her current infobox, showing her 6 years into her career at age 26 or 27 is just too young, and not representative of a career spanning six decades. There seems to be an unofficial and non-universal standard that living people have an image from less than 20 years ago, but dead people have an image from their 'prime' period.
Is there some forum, other than Julie Christie's talk page or just film, to which this discussion can be escalated? Masato.harada (talk) 15:15, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be a different standard for deceased people. See Talk:Elizabeth_II#Main_Photo, where the photo for QE2 was changed from a recent photo to a "mid reign" photo. Cary Grant's article uses a "peak career" photo too. I think the appropriate place to discuss this would be either at WT:BIOG or possibly at WT:ACTOR. There doesn't seem to be much guidance on the issue, and arguably there should be. I can see the argument from both angles, so am not too invested in the outcome, but as I stated above I believe there is a convention to use a "recent" photo in the case of living people.
If the consensus is to use the older photo in the infobox, then the recent photo should be moved down to the appropriate section and the b&w still removed from the 1960s section because we don't need the photo in the article twice, which was actually my overriding reason for reverting you. Betty Logan (talk) 15:34, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. That was my carelessness. Masato.harada (talk) 16:33, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Julie_Christie&oldid=1230422082"