Jump to content

Talk:Catherine Deneuve

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

Playboy

[edit]

The article is categorised under playboy models but nothing is mentioned abt her modeling for playboy. Is the cat an error? --Gurubrahma 05:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't think it is [1] -- Samir धर्म 05:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is not an error, she appeared nude in a Playboy pictorial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smartissexy (talk • contribs) 01:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

[edit]

I removed this statement about her role in Hunger:

", and her performance won her an indelible cult status in the States among lesbians, goths, and artistically inclined teenage boys. "

While there may indeed be some truth behind this, it needs to be rephrased and preferrably sourced if it's to be included. Even if she really did gain status in the gay community due to this role, I really doubt anyone can cite sources for inspiring "artistically inclined teenage[d] boys."

Rudd-O This article REALLY NEEDS to be NPOVized. The second paragraph is a mess of glorifications. Sure, Deneuve is a great artist in the eyes of many people. But blatant praise like that does not belong on Wikipedia.

Unfortunately for you Rudd-O, the bio located on Wikipedia is the same bio for her everywhere else. You call it blatant praise, yet it is fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.227.236.102 (talk) 23:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

71.227.236.102 -STOP the POV edits. STOP the sock puppetry (aka Smartissexy). STOP the vandalistic reverts. You have been reported62.64.201.37 23:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only vandal on this page is you (62.64.201.37). The biography I keep fixing on this page is not a POV edit, it is the ACCEPTED and SAME biography for Deneuve on nearly every other internet source. The biography you continually replace it with is poorly written, has countless misspellings, and has multiple French titles capitalized which are not supposed to be capitalized. You have continually removed sources that I have cited at the bottom of this page. I personally submitted the complete filmography which you have messed around with, and it now contains films that Deneuve is not working on. I personally submitted the Awards section, which you have also messed around with. Then there is the life section that you keep touching, adding POV references to every relationship the woman has had (without citing a single source I might add), and on top of that you don't even have the decency to clean it up, it is one big run on sentence like the rest of your edits. Then of course there is that huge cluster at the bottom of the page which is a trivia/other information section, once again no sources cited. Take your own advice, STOP touching the article. Smartissexy 07:10, 09 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possible error?

[edit]

Either the Britannica or Wikipedia article is wrong about her birth year. Britannica says she was born in 1942, at the time of writing this article says 1943. Delta Tango • Talk 09:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry and edits

[edit]

Smartissexy, thank you for confirming that you are the sockpuppet of 71.227.236.102. (Your attempted reverts of your talk page, at one moment smartissexy the next 71.227.236.102, show that too!) Regarding edits: you must edit in good faith. By all means make constructive edits. Correct grammar, correct filmographies, etc. But you always want to add POV and remove genuine information and format against the style book just because you want it so! So go slowly. Do one thing at a time. Edit grammar THEN filmography and so on. Just trying to bulldoze your POV is against the spirit of wikipedia. 62.64.211.141 09:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Forgetting to sign in has zero to do with being a sockpuppet. The only thing you add to the page is poor grammar, inaccuracies, and misspellings. Genuine information includes sources, of which you are clearly too lazy to include. Cutting and pasting from all over the internet does not make the information accurate. Don't bring up bulldozing, when you add some new edit every 15 minutes with a cut and paste hack job to wherever you think it should fit onto the page. I have sources for my supposed POV edits, you haven't included a single source for the garbage you keep tossing all over this page. Take your own advice, learn to be constructive. Every time you vandalize this page, I will be cleaning up your slop. Smartissexy 10:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have told you, you are perfectly welcome to make improvements. Just don't try to slip in the usual POV rubbish you have been warned about by numerous people for months. You are becoming very overheated. So cool down. The article is not PR. I am being perfectly reasonable, please be the same. REASONABLE. (Sockpuppetry: we just know you are prepared to act dishonestly to try to get your way). 62.64.210.186 13:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should both stop arguing like children. 88888 14:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC) Having read both versions, I now think that smartissexy has a case (sorry). I have reverted to back his/her version. Why not go from there? 88888 14:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My version is superior, it incorporated a great deal of what 62.64.210.186 attempted to add in a very sloppy way. 62.64.210.186 if you touch the article again you will be reported for the 3RR. Smartissexy 17:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a link for the separate filmography. There is no point in repeating it. I think the editing can continue very well from here. I have fixed many links and added sources. Please make piecemeal changes like these so that it is possible to see what is added and removed.62.64.211.213 16:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a joke, you added TWO SOURCES, you fixed nothing. Your version is poor, riddled with grammatical and spelling errors, and it is the same cut and paste hack job from NON-SOURCED sites. You don't need to repeat anything, it is clear my version is preferred as I am not the only one saying this. Like I said, take your own advice, if you vandalize this article again you will be reported for the 3RR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smartissexy (talk • contribs) 17:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted back to Smart's version for a number of reasons including it is a far better building block than 62.64.211.213. In doing so I fortunately also removed the blatant copyright violations incurred by 62.64.211.213 which were lifted verbatim and uncited from the IMDB trivia section of Deneuve's biography there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alfwine (talk • contribs) 17:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sexuality

[edit]

Is it true she is bisexual? It says so here. [2] MerriFunn 13:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

She is not bisexual, and she has said that she is not countless times. Smartissexy 17:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Filmography

[edit]

I have linked to the already existing self-standing filmography. 62.64.211.213 16:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to add the {{MOSLOW}} template to the filmography section, but the article is protected. Either way, the filmography is in the incorrect order; according to the Manual of Style for lists of works, filmographies should be from oldest to newest. Could someone correct this once the article is unprotected, or at least add the template so someone else can do so? Thank you very much. María (críticame) 12:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right on. :) María (críticame) 17:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Missing film?

[edit]

I looked in the filmography for a film I saw in France in 1966 whose title (unfortunately) I can't recall, but it doesn't seem to be there...

Deneuve plays a girl who gets involved in a robbery although she has a young son. The gang gets caught, and she spends the next couple of decades in prison. When she gets out, she looks up her son to see what has become of him — but he falls in love with her, not knowing she's his mother.

I'm certain it was Deneuve, although not absolutely certain of the date. is this film really missing, or is my memory playing me up?

Paul Magnussen (talk) 00:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was Si c'était à refaire (1976). She asks her lawyer to make her pregnant. He refuses, but she succeeds in getting pregnant to make her prison term more bearable. It's in the filmography all right. --El Ingles (talk) 18:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot. I'd forgotten about being in Belgium in 1976 — that must have been when I saw it. Paul Magnussen (talk) 18:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Pair of Twins (Chanson des Jumelles) by Michel Legrand, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Young_Girls_of_Rochefort — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.216.248.139 (talk) 22:17, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Belle-de-jour.jpg

[edit]

Image:Belle-de-jour.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 11:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cultivated lust object?

[edit]

"cultivated lust object for art house filmgoers everywhere"? Jose João (talk) 08:52, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is the standard for every biography of Deneuve. I can see this article is going to end up in an edit war again due to the amount of people who feel the need to remove references and have disregard for proper sentence structure and facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.11.187.178 (talk) 08:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Protection (24 hours)

[edit]
  • Due to edit warring (see page history, this date), the article has been temporarily protected.
  • Please review Help:Reverting before reverting again.
  • Please discuss edits here before committing changes.
  • If you'd like to request unprotection, please do so on WP:RFPP. Any admin may unprotect the article.
  • Please do not request that I perform the unprotection, if you don't choose to wait. The unprotection must be done by a different admin.
  • This article is on a living person and must comply with Wikipedia's policy on the Biographies of Living Persons
  • Page protection is not an endorsement of the current version, it is simply used to stop disruptive editing patterns.
  • No specific person(s) are targeted by this protection.
  • Have a nice day. ~Kylu (u|t) 05:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Luke4545 - touch the page again today and you will be reported for 3RR. You do not own the page, and your constant reversions aren't helping the matter. Also, nice job on deleting your own user discussion page. I see you have a long history of edit warring and continually causing disruptions. Smartissexy (talk) 23:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your constant threats are not constructive at all. Not to mention that you could just as easily be reported for 3RR as well if you continue your own pattern. Also, you don't own the page either; so, stop acting as if I'm the guilty party here when you have made many revisions with not only your user page, but your IP as well (67.11.187.178).
Furthermore, I didn't intend to delete anything on my discussion page, as I was still rather new to how discussions worked, and thus, I was testing several things out. I made this clear with that user. You seem to have a history of edit warring as well, according to the archives section on your discussion page. Once again, another example of the pot calling the kettle black.
Anyway, this constant bickering isn't helping at all; so, instead of going after me, list the problems you have with the page. -- Luke4545 (talk) 23:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The film template is not needed, nor is it required. It looks terrible and it was fine the way it was. Multiple spelling errors which I have fixed numerous times, and the constant changing of the opening paragraph. Like it or not, the one in my version is the accepted biography for almost every single Deneuve bio on the internet and elsewhere. Forgetting to log in when editing happens, so don't act like you are pointing out anything shocking. You have now reverted twice today, if you touch it again you will be reported for 3RR. It's a promise. Smartissexy (talk) 23:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Luke4545 you have now been reported for 3RR. The original template is the one that you changed. I suggest you follow the Wikipedia guidelines. Smartissexy (talk) 23:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Many of the websites that use the biography are Wikipedia spin-offs, as they use content from the original Wikipedia article. Those are not credible websites; this has been discussed many times in Wikipedia. Also, as someone else pointed out in another comment in the revision history, sourced POV is still POV. Read the entire neutral point of view article, and you'll see. Also, your revisions were littered with formatting mistakes, especially with the titles, as there were many unnecessary capitalizations. Read the Wikipedia manual of style article, and you'll see what I'm talking about.
As far as a film table, many actors/actresses pages use a film table, partly for aesthetic purposes. There is no need to remove it. If you want, we can just simply use the table in a separate Catherine Deneuve filmography article, considering that many actors/actresses with extensive filmographies have a separate filmography article. -- Luke4545 (talk) 23:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Those aren't my revisions, they have been done over time with countless people modifying tags and various other things. The table is fine in the Deneuve Filmography article, but it doesn't belong in this one. Either way, the first paragraph needs to be fixed as when the "POV" is removed, it still doesn't mesh well. Smartissexy (talk) 00:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How about this then....I'll let you do what you want with the opening paragraph (although, if there are any formatting issues, I'll have to edit them), while I'll add the filmography table to the Catherine Deneuve filmography article, and then have it linked to this page. If there's anything else you would like to bring up, let me know. I hope we won't have to engage in any more fighting after this. -- Luke4545 (talk) 00:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed my part, and I see you fixed yours. I still think you should keep the integrity of the film table intact by adding the directors to it. Regardless of American POV, directors are iconic in French cinema, and I think it has relevance. Smartissexy (talk) 00:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that directors are extremely important (in fact, I personally value directors more), but the standards that have seemingly been set regarding listing filmographies on the English Wikipedia site don't usually have the directors' names alongside films in which the article is about the actor/actress. If you want to create an entire director section in the table for each film, then go for it. However, someone may remove it later, given the reason above. -- Luke4545 (talk) 00:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's funny we agree on the director issue. It is stupid that a film template would not be a standard but that what goes into it would be? Makes no sense. The only reason people remove directors is because they do not comprehend the importance of a director in foreign cinema. I am going to play World of Warcraft, nice edit warring with you LOL. Smartissexy (talk) 00:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, alright, take care. -- Luke4545 (talk) 00:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

16May8 edits

[edit]

Im putting all her personal info together. If u say it shouldnt be atop, that 'career section' should b atop; then y does her career section begin with "Deneuve was born Catherine Fabienne Dorléac in Paris, one of four daughters to French stage..."  ??? Hm? If u feel/c format errors, correct them. U dont do that, u just revert. All your edits r reverts. 70.108.119.24 (talk) 01:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all career overview sections begin in that manner. Please look over some of the major actor/actress pages, and you'll see what I'm talking about. I already discussed on your talk page how biographical articles are usually organized. I also said that you please engage in discussion BEFORE making any other full-scale edits, and yet, you continue to make those edits. I will reiterate the point again, please fully discuss the matter before attempting any other full-scale edits. -- Luke4545 (talk) 02:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I too reiterate this again: correct the format errors u c. U dont. All u do is revert. If fact, that is all u do on wiki, revert, revert, revert. Y dont u actully edit a page? 70.108.119.24 (talk) 15:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? I add content all the time and revert any unconstructive/ unnecessary edits. That's what a lot of established users do. I've even received praise and a barnstar for my contributions, especially for sports articles; so, your accusations that my edits are just based on reverts are completely false. Not to mention that reverting unconstructive/unnecessary edits is an important part of cleaning up Wikipedia. I received a barnstar for that as well. Stop acting as if reverting unconstructive/unnecessary edits (no matter the amount of reversions) is somehow a negative. There are even bots on this site designed for reverting material; although, they're not always able to pick up on every instance of an unconstructive/unnecessary edit. That's why it's imperative that other users are rigorous in their efforts to help clean up this site, which is one of the things I'm trying to do.
Furthermore, you're once again reverting material without any proper discussion first. I've already urged you to discuss matters BEFORE making any reversions, and yet, you continue to seemingly refuse to work towards any constructive resolution. I will bring this up with an admin. -- Luke4545 (talk) 20:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Im talking about how majority of your edits r reverts. Its very easy 2 click the revert button. Tout your barnstars all u want, as Shania Says, That Don't Impress Me Much! Stop acting as if your numerous reversions isnt just so u can get a hi edit count. I feel your accusation is baseless & false as well. U feel my edit is unconstructive/unnecessary. When I initially (here). made my edit I said y It wasnt good enough 4 u. 70.108.119.24 (talk) 07:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you kidding me? Why would I care about a high edit count? Once again, you're throwing around accusations that are completely false and baseless. You say it's so easy to "click the revert button," yet, that's exactly what you were doing in this article without fully discussing matters first. Good ol' hypocrisy. And you obviously missed the part where I was explaining why reverting unconstructive/unnecessary material is an essential part of Wikipedia. It doesn't matter if a majority of a person's edits are reverts. There are bots who are designed for reverting, and there are even USERS, sometimes ADMINISTRATORS, on this site who spend an enormous amount of time reverting unconstructive/unnecessary edits, and thus, their edits primarily consist of reversions. So, are you going to tell me that they're just trying to achieve a high edit count as well? Please stop with your condescending attitude.
Next, I already explained on your talk page why your edits were unconstructive/unnecessary. I'll discuss this once again, and hopefully, you'll finally understand. As you know, I said your edits contained several formatting mistakes. For example, you were improperly capitalizing headings and had some punctuation errors. That's why I referred you to the Wikipedia manual of style article, and I hope you look over that carefully.
Also, it's completely unnecessary to rearrange the sections like you have. As I also said on your talk page, the Catherine Deneuve article is structured much like many actors/actress pages, or any other biographical article for that matter (especially those regarding entertainers and athletes), on the English Wikipedia site. "Personal life" sections are almost always placed after a career overview section and after sections pertaining to accomplishments, or outside work, or both (as is the case in the Catherine Deneuve article). Also, you don't need to add a section entitled "Biography." The article itself is a biography. The sections that are included in the article, or any biographical article, are sections OF a biography.
On another note, if anyone else happens to read this, I noticed a couple of users edited the article since the last reversion by 70.108.119.24 (talk), and now the "Career" heading is missing after the first paragraph. The version [3] as of this posting is almost like the version before this whole ordeal began; the exceptions being the first paragraph, along with the "Career" heading missing. The removal of the "Career" heading may have been mistake, given that it was the user Smartissexy (talk) who made an edit that mirrored that previous version, but added a near-duplicate of the first paragraph.[4] The near-duplicate appeared to look much like the first paragraph that I edited when I was attempting to offer a compromise to this whole ordeal.[5] Anyway, if someone else wants to re-add that "Career" heading, then go ahead, but I won't edit the page until some sort of resolution between me and 70.108.119.24 (talk) is reached before the two-day discussion proposal issued by PeterSymonds (talk) (or following a request for comment case, if we can't come to an agreement). Even if adding something like that may seem rather minor and not affect my standing, I want to be as constructive about this process as possible. -- Luke4545 (talk) 18:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment

[edit]
and 70.108.119.24 (talk · contribs) over full-scale edits that 70.108.119.24 (talk · contribs) did not discuss prior to making them. Luke4545 (talk · contribs) disputes that these edits contained various formatting mistakes. !! time= 23:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC) }}[reply]

Long-running dispute. 70.108 believes that her BAFTA-award should be included in the lead, but this is disputed by Luke4545. The reasons why can be found above. I open this now to gain the views of other editors. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 23:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm not disputing the inclusion of her BAFTA Award nomination. Please check my last response under the section 16May8 edits in this discussion page to see exactly what I'm disputing. In fact, IP 70.108.119.24 (talk) wanted to include "César Award-winning actress" previously; so, I agreed to that inclusion in this edit[6], as part of a compromise that I attempted to lay out. I actually don't mind the inclusion of the BAFTA Award nomination. My dispute is over the full-scale edits (which had several formatting mistakes) that the IP didn't discuss prior to making them. As I said, please read my last response in the 16May8 edits section, in this article's discussion page, to understand exactly what I'm disputing. Thank you. -- Luke4545 (talk) 23:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OUTSIDE OPINION As I'm looking at the diffs, I'd be inclined to agree with the IP. Typically, bio sections come before career information (IMDB does it this way). The first sentence or two of the career section do need reformatted, as they're stating biographical details. I'll also point out that there isn't a policy or guideline requiring discussion before any major edit- in fact, that idea goes against a policy, WP:BOLD. I also wouldn't recommend reverting because they introduced formatting errors (I've actually seen edits reverted because there was a spelling error)- these can be fixed without reverting the entire edit. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 04:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen many articles structured the exact opposite of what you just said. And I don't see how the way pages on IMDB are structured has any relevance to how pages on Wikipedia are structured. Maybe there has been discussion about this on other articles - if so, please let me know. Also, my main gripe with doing those full-scale edits is that they contained several formatting mistakes AND seemingly unnecessary rearrangement of sections. So, the reversions weren't just based on formatting errors. And as I stated before, other actor/actress career sections have often began with the same kind of information that was given in the initial career section of this particular article. For example, please take a look at the Vivien Leigh page, which is a featured article. Now, if there was one main difference, you could say that the Catherine Deneuve career section was simply titled "Career," while the similarly-structured section in the Vivien Leigh article was titled "Early life and acting career." I don't see why naming the sections the same would matter either way, but as you'll see, the content and structure is relatively similar (i.e. place of birth and brief info about parents is mentioned in the beginning of the career sections in both articles). If you, or any other editors out there, think the initial Catherine Deneuve career section should be titled "Early life and acting career" as well, then I don't have a problem going along with that.
By the way, under the IP's "Biography" section, not only was "Personal life" included as a sub-section, but "Entrepreneurial" was in there, too. Going by that arrangement, why would "Entrepreneurial" be a necessary sub-section as well, but not sections such as "Charities" and "Political involvement"? What's the distinction? The arrangement just seems rather unnecessary. -- Luke4545 (talk) 12:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question re Article Sources

[edit]

I see a lot of discussion above about the quality of this article.

This includes the comments: "the bio located on Wikipedia is the same bio for her everywhere else."

AND "The biography ....is the ACCEPTED and SAME biography for Deneuve on nearly every other internet source."

These comments agree with my observation that there is a lot of overlap among various on-line biographies of Catherine Deneuve. For example, the bit about "made her reputation playing a series of beautiful ice maidens for..." is in our article AND it also appears in the first three references.

The question I want to ask -- Are these other articles extracts from the Wikipedia article, or is the Wikipedia articles plagiarized from another source?

I'm hoping someone who is familiar with this article's history can answer this.

Thank you, Wanderer57 (talk) 21:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

I'd like to point the editors of this article to a great piece on movingimagesource.us about Catherine Deneuve, here:

http://www.movingimagesource.us/articles/belle-de-siecle-20080604

I'm affiliated with Moving Image Source and cannot post this as an external link myself, but I think it should be added. Moving Image Source is a non-profit interested only in disseminating great criticsm.

Thanks.

206.252.136.194 (talk) 14:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

This is to draw the following issue Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2008 October 2‎ to the attention of editors who are interested in the Catherine Deneuve article. Wanderer57 (talk) 01:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for noting this problem. While much of the material had already been revised, courtesy of this article's careful editors, segments remained slightly too close to the source, close enough to be a concern as a derivative work. I have revised these portions to further separate and have also located a few sources to help support the text. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:36, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Years passed, and some websites are offline today, or have changed the way it indexes their pages. Here is a list of broken links I collected from the article, just to keep them for the record:

I noticed that a lot of this article was based on the content found on toutsurdeneuve.free.fr. I would like to bring to the attention of everyone that this is just a blog like wordpress.com or blogspot.com, where anyone can say anything about anyone. Therefore, it doesn't comply with WP's expectations in terms of sources:

Also, I'm removing this link to Yasni:

It's a people search engine that scraps content from the Web...

So that's a lot of invalid refs. Actually half this article is based on unverifiable information... Not very compliant with WP's rules... --Thistrackted (talk) 16:29, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 22 November 2012

[edit]

Please add the following film to Catherine Deneuve's filmography: ' God Loves Caviar', filmed in 2012, in the role of 'Empress Catherine II of Russia'. More details can be found here: http://uk.imdb.com/title/tt2181959/ Spapkcom (talk) 21:47, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The IMDb is not a reliable source. ⋘HueSatLum ? ❢⋙ 15:36, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Catherine Deneuve. 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, 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:45, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Catherine Deneuve. 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, 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) 08:11, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Catherine Deneuve. 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) 06:27, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Missing Photos

[edit]

What is the reasoning behind making all her photos, (or even many of her photos;) about her as an old, relatively has-been woman? Seems like every bio should include (even emphasize) photo(s) of the person at the time (age) they become notable or most active/over-achieving. (Example: Highly over-represented Old Man Albert Einstein pics are also a "cute and politically correct," but warped historical perversion! Photos tell (his)stories too.)
--2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:282E:4AA5:9277:BB30 (talk) 09:32, 12 November 2017 (UTC)Doug Bashford[reply]

[edit]

A section in the article copied large sections of text directly from the sources, a copyright violation. The material is likely relevant, so I am linking to the sources here.

  • Safronova, Valeriya (9 January 2018). "Catherine Deneuve and Others Denounce the #MeToo Movement". The New York Times. Retrieved 10 January 2018.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Catherine_Deneuve&oldid=1252181876"