Talk:Jessica Chastain/Archive 1

The following is a copy of a thread from User_talk:All_Hallow's_Wraith#Jessica_Chastain. To kick start the discussion again, we are willing to use this to prime the pump. Read it through and then continue the discussion. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:05, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Given our recent discussion this might be of interest for you: Talk:Jessica_Chastain

regards,

--Kmhkmh (talk) 15:17, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to thank BOTH of you for your participation on the talk page. We really need input from other editors, so your comments are valued. Both of you state a very clear preference for a birthdate of 1977, and consider a 1981 date as false. I suspect you're right, but I'm totally confused by the fact that the RS are conflicting. Therefore I don't take any particular side in the issue, other than to seek to enforce policy.

Since you both so strongly prefer one date, what sources are you using? I'd like to evaluate them. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:51, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't prefer a particular date (see the 3 options listed in the discussion). After superficially browsing the various sources in the discussion, I basically only oppose the 1981-only option. The 1977-only option may be justifiable if people can agree what the official records say, i.e. when it is is obvious to everybody that the official records for her are authentic and state her date or year of birth. Short of that state both dates or none, with those 2 options being possible in any case anyhow.--Kmhkmh (talk) 05:39, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I haven't seen any official records yet. Have you? -- Brangifer (talk) 05:47, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Nope, only (indirect) "conclusions" from genealogy websites. Nevertheless I pointed the (potential) option C since the birthday certificate issue was brought up in the discussion earlier. And some people seemed to entertain the notion that WP should/could knowingly publish false information, which imho is a misreading of policy intent due to an overly literal policy without regard of context, that is the concrete case, other policies, policy and project goals. So if we had indeed an (unquestionably) authentic copy of her actual birth certificate, then I would argue strongly for C, but so far we haven't.--Kmhkmh (talk) 09:45, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think anyone would advocate for publishing information that we "know" is wrong, but only while there is still doubt and sources are conflicting, we parrot what RS state. Using logic (IOW OR) we can conclude that not all those dates can be right, but we don't know for sure which ones. That's where we're at now. As soon as we get clarity, we'll eliminate the wrong ones. We haven't seen a birth certificate yet. I thought maybe you had since you were so sure.

Genealogy websites are notoriously inaccurate, which causes me no end of grief, since I'm the family genealogist. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:09, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

We're not talking about a family tree of Jessica Chastain listing her as born in 1977. But the combination of the California Birth Record (1977) with that early article that called her "21" seals the deal. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 17:56, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I guess I haven't seen them. Would you please provide them here? I'm interested in anything that will seal the deal and put this issue to rest! -- Brangifer (talk) 02:56, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean? I checked the California Birth Records on ancestry.com, which someone referenced on her talk page, and the Jessica Chastain born March 24, 1977 seems like a very good match, mother's maiden name "Chastain" (no other plausible matches in any plausible year). As for the article that says she was 21 in 1998, it's here and it was linked right at the top of the Jessica Chastain talk page. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 03:15, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

1. The metroactive source is currently being used to document an instance mentioning 21 years, which tends to back up a birth year near 1977. So far so good. It's not absolute proof, but it's in a RS, so we're using it. That's good.

2. I just searched the talk page and didn't find any reference to ancestry.com or California Birth Records. Do you have it and will you just copy it here so we can look at it?

I'm deliberately avoiding discussing this on the talk page because of the personal attacks I always get from the IP. Here we're experienced editors who can civilly discuss and analyze this in peace, and I'm hoping you can provide good proof for the 1977 date. That would settle this problem. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:57, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh, it starts off with "Her record on the CA birth index has her " (on the talk page). Well, if you search, at ancestry.com, for Jessica Chastain born March 24, all you get is "Name: Jessica M Chastain Birth Date : 3 / 24 / 1977 Gender : Female Mother's Maiden Name : Chastain Birth County: Sacramento". You can also search here, but there is no mother's maiden name there. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 04:28, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

So we have unofficial (i.e. non-governmental) genealogy websites listing someone who could very well be her for that date. Interesting. (I've often had trouble finding any information for the current generation in my own research, but more information for the older generations. I imagine that if any of our family were Mormons, the situation would be very different.) Unfortunately for us, I don't know of any genealogy websites that are considered RS for Wikipedia use, but for family tree research, they are often good places to get information and tips. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:46, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Only three Jessica Chastains ever born in California. The other two definitely ain't her. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 04:48, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, those are the only ones yet submitted by users of the website. (There could be others.) It's probably true that she's the one from Sacramento, but it's not a RS. Although it's unofficial, it still tends to make me believe that she's born in 1977. Now to get something more reliable! -- Brangifer (talk) 04:55, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

No, no, you don't get it. The users of these websites do not submit these listings. These are the complete California Birth Records, uploaded by ancestry.com. There are no missing entries. These are straight from the source and complete. No user-editing in this department. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 04:57, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Ummm....ancestry.com isn't official. It's user-created and edited. Now if ancestry.com has special access to official state birth records, that would be a different matter. Is that what you're saying? Do they really pay for all those records? -- Brangifer (talk) 05:06, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if they pay for them, or how much, but these are all the official records, straight from the source. There's no question about that. These are not uploaded by users, these are not created by users, and you can't edit the California Birth Records, try as you might. To sum up, if your question is "Now if ancestry.com has special access to official state birth records" - the answer is, yes, they do. There is some interesting material over at California Birth Index but once again neither of the links I sent you are user-created or user-edited in any way, shape, or form. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 05:10, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Very interesting! The current state of affairs seems a bit complicated, according to the CBI article, but they have had them and seem to still list part of the information. Now, do we have a ruling that says we can use ancestry.com as a RS here? If we can get such a ruling, we could probably settle the matter right away! Would you like to start a thread at RS/N? -- Brangifer (talk) 05:17, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't doubt that it could be recognized as a reliable source. The problem is original research, how do we know that it's the same Jessica Chastain? Certainly in 1977 it wouldn't have said "Jessica Chastain, Oscar nominee", and so it doesn't say so there today. Of course we can make a very scientific guess that it is... but... All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 06:12, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Darn! I do see your point though. It (very slightly) borders on OR and SYNTH violations, but if we can find RS which back it up, then it's their OR and SYNTH, and not ours, which is okay. It is editors, and not RS, which must not make novel synthesis. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:16, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

If we can simply convince the people at Talk:Jessica Chastain that the California Birth Index is the smoking gun, then we can just use the "age 21" thing as a source. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 06:18, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

The article's talk page has now gotten a "stuck" label on it! I've never seen that before, but it's true. We need to kick start this issue into life again. Would it be okay with you if we started a new section there by copying this whole thread? That might get the discussion going again, with these last points to prime the pump. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:30, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I do not claim to retain the rights and priviledges to the text on my page. You should feel free to copy and paste it as you wish, or re-publish it in book form for a hefty sum without need of royalties. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 04:45, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

LOL! I understand, but it wouldn't be right to "just do it" without your acceptance. I'll do it now and let's see what happens. Thanks. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:54, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Though most reference sites say she was born in 1981 this seems highly dubious:

• A 1998 article about her early theatre work says she was 21, i.e. born in 1977.
• Jessica graduated from high school in 1995 presumably near age 18 and was attending community college during the 1996/97 academic year
• Her record on the CA birth index has her born 3/24/1977. The full record also says her mother's maiden name is Chastain. Though this conflicts a bit with articles that state she was born Jessica Howard, in the previous articles her high school documents refer to her as Jessica Chastain, not Howard. (Yearbook photo )Though this would also be consistent with articles that state she was raised with her stepfather so in that case she wouldn't have been born Howard.
• Public records search for Jessica M Chastain has her born on 3/24/1977.
• The birth record for her brother William has him born 12/24/1981, less than nine months after her alleged date of birth.
• Also some mainstream wire services have updated her date of birth to March 24, 1977, including the Associated Press. --Shivertimbers433

Yes, the person that was born on March 29th 1981 is Jessica Lynn Howard and we know that Jessica's middle name is not Lynn and her birth name is Jessica Howard and NOT Jessica Chastain.--Stemoc (talk) 22:42, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

IMDb has also changed to the 1977 date, corresponding with the same birth record. But if you use the 1977 date, you should probably also edit the birth name. Brndtnlsn (talk) 10:43, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

It is obvious there is no concrete evidence on her birthdate, etc - just speculation. Other sites are updating based on wiki info, so therefore it is imperative that wiki is not perpetuating something that may not be factual, and highly dubious is NOT FACTUAL!

There are numerous, credible links that keep getting deleted on wiki that have her birthdate at 1981, that she was born with the last name Howard and in Sonoma County. She did not graduate in 1985 for the named high school. High school students also attend community college courses so that reference doesn't prove anything as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cannesfan (talk • contribs) 17:41, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Your sources that claim she was born in 1981 rely on quantity over quality, and are mostly reference sites that don't cite where their information came from, and are essentially about as accurate as using an encyclopedia. Her education makes it nearly impossible that she was born in 1981. As for her high school graduation I assume you mean 1995, which is the only date that shows up anywhere. Per WP:NOR if she graduated in another year from another high school you need to provide a tangible source, not just your own speculation. Same with her biographical information, there is conflicting information whether her father is actually her stepfather and if Howard was her birth name or acquired later. As for "imperative that wiki is not perpetuating something that may not be factual" I don't understand why you keep deleting the 1977 date when when even you admit 1981 isn't concrete, and remove any mention of her father actually being her stepfather and her eduational history without any sources to the contrary. --Shivertimbers433 (talk) 18:29, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, thank you, I did mean 1995 for graduation, and she is not listed in the graduating class for that year at that school nor does any of the references cited say she is. As it does appear factual that she attended that school in 1995, she could also have been attending the junior college while still in high school, (common practice for over-achievers - which we can both admit she fits in that category), so that cannot be used to prove age. "Her education makes it nearly impossible that she was born in 1981", by your opinion, is a conjecture - not a statement of fact. If the information is credible regarding her brother, it is still not unusual for a sibling to be born nine months apart. There are far more references to "father" over "stepfather" in her interviews, and the "conflicting information" is maybe one article out of twenty. There is admittedly a lot of conflicting information out there, but there is as much - if not more - references supporting the 1981 birthdate. What has happened recently is that pieces of information are being wedged together to try and support an opinion and then being perpetuated because it's on wiki. Just think that we need to post responsibly and support changes with more concrete sources. Cannesfan —Preceding undated comment added 21:23, 1 April 2012 (UTC).

Where exactly is your source for "she is not listed in the graduating class for that year at that school"? If it gets down to splitting hairs the source I cited states she was a senior at that high school is 1995. (As for attending high school and college comcurrently, no, she didn't; the source I cited states, "[she] came to City College after graduating from El Camino high school") If I had argued she was born in 1977 solely based on that it would be a conjecture, but I corroborated it with public records that explicity state she was born in 1977, which is the same date that the Associated Press also recognizes so I'm not pulling information out of nowhere. Also just because a source refers to her "father" does not rule out that he might actually be her stepfather - simple deductive reasoning states that all stepfathers are fathers. I'm not trying to push any opinion - just state the facts which all say she was born in 1977, and as you've stated above her being born in 1981 requires far more speculation and wishful thinking.--Shivertimbers433 (talk) 04:32, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Also in regards to the David Letterman YouTube source here is a transcript:
-Where are you from?
-Northern California.
-...What town in Northern California?
-The wine country.
-So this would be Napa Valley, Sonoma Valley, something like that?
-Yeah, yeah, Sonoma area.
-Is there a town you don't want to mention? Is that why we're-
She never states she was born there, or specifies any more than Sonoma area.--Shivertimbers433 (talk) 08:25, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Shivertimbers433 has made a strong case. I think the 1977 date with corresponding birth name and place should be listed, with the birth record, AP and IMDb as supporting evidence (and making sure the whole page has consistent information). That the actress herself might want us to believe something else is unimportant; she has specifically said that she prefers not to reveal her actual age. Alternatively, all birth data should be removed and replaced with a note that the data is contested. Brndtnlsn (talk) 08:02, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The public birth records, (that had no link, only referenced), have not been solely identified as this Jessica considering the question whether she was born as Chastain or Howard. The Romeo and Juliet article is from a small local paper that could have easily transposed the ages and is not sufficient proof of anything. Because there is such a strong opinion on both sides, I think the reasonable thing to do for now is to not have a birthdate at all. Cannesfan (talk) 20:09, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

So a published article in a newspaper doesn't count because YOU have decided that they "might have transposed the ages and is not sufficient proof", however published sources that support the age you like count as doctrine? LOL. 64.223.235.254 05:17, April 14, 2012‎ (UTC)

I mentioned on her facebook page that there was a discussion going on here at wikipedia regarding her age, a day later, she deleted my post..probably goes to show that she is definitely trying to hide her age but why? is the question, she isn't some 40's oldie like D-ListerJunie Hoang who recently sued IMDb for disclosing her age and thus being unable to get acting gigs. She is now a renowned (A-List) actress. she does not need to hide her age....--Stemoc (talk) 02:06, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

What a mess! I come here and discover that a whole lot of OR and SYNTH violations are the modus operandi. Frankly, even if her actual age were in question, we're supposed to be more concerned with what reliable sources say, and not "the truth", although that would be nice too. We can quote RS, even when they are conflicting, and thus reveal that there is a difference of opinion. Nothing wrong with that. One reliable source clearly says she was 30 in 2011:

• "“I don’t like revealing how old I am,” the 30-year-old tells me..."<ref name="Walker">{{cite news | last = Walker | first = Tim | date = September 26, 2011 | title = Jessica Chastain says actress should never be asked their age | url = http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/8787832/Jessica-Chastain-says-actress-should-never-be-asked-their-age.html | work = Telegraph.co.uk | publisher = [[Telegraph Media Group]] | accessdate = April 7, 2012 | quote = 'I don’t like revealing how old I am,' the 30-year-old tells me}}</ref>

The source is reliable and clearly says she was 30. Speculations about her yearbook are OR and SYNTH violations, so let's not hear mention of that again. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:17, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I graduated from El Camino High School alongside Jessica in 1995, and can definitely tell you that she was NOT five years younger than the rest of us at the time. She was 18. This means she was born in 1977. Sorry, BullBrangifer, but the Telegraph got it wrong. By the way, In Style magazine identified her as being 25 years old about the same time as the Telegraph said she was 30. That doesn't make them right, either. You can keep deleting the truth all you want, but the fact is that she will be 35 years old this year, 2012. The Telegraph is NOT infallible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.223.235.254 (talk) 04:35, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

The Telegraph may well be wrong, but it's considered a RS here, so we can quote it "for what it says", NOT necessarily for "the truth". Your personal experience is not a RS here and is OR. I'm totally open to any other ages from other RS. That's what we use here. I couldn't care less whether she's 14 or 55. That's not the point. I have no particular wish here, other than that we use RS, and not engage in OR and SYNTH violations. I left it open to the use of other sources. I'm not wedded to ONLY using the Telegraph. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:21, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Also, BullBranfiger, you declare the age the Telegraph gives as fact because they say so, but other published sources (including the Associated Press, MetroActive, and the online movie database IMDB), all cite 1977 as her birth date. Why should the Telegraph's age for her be considered fact over the other sources simply because you want it to be? If you read all of the evidence amassed by shivertimbers433 above, it is pretty clear that the Telegraph took a guess at her age and got it wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.223.235.254 (talk) 04:56, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

See my comment above. Unless we actually have her birth certificate (a primary source we aren't allowed to use!!), we have to quote secondary RS, even if they are conflicting. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:21, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

But you delete all referenced secondary sources that don't agree with the age you want. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.223.235.254 (talk) 05:20, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Jessica was born on 24 Mar 1977, And almost all of her fans know this. Why wikipedia keeps her birthday info out is beyond me ??? 100 % Proof is there for anyone to see that shes born in 1977 and the date is Mar 24. Add it already . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.195.173.68 (talk) 09:01, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Please provide RS for that date so we can use them. What her fans "know" isn't relevant or usable here. We would LOVE to have 100% proof, we just need such proof from RS. No one is trying to "keep it out". -- Brangifer (talk) 03:23, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Except, of course, that no matter how many published and reliable sources you provide and reference, BullRangifer will immediately delete them from the article and replace them with only the sources that support the age he wants her to be. Trust me, I am among many who have included and referenced published sources in the article that give different ages, but he immediately takes them out over and over again and skews the article to bias it toward his belief that she is 30. She isn't. People have been trying to get her correct age onto Wikipedia for months but some people are very dogged guardians of their delusions. Even IMDB lists her birth year as 1977, but BullBranfiger won't allow that information on the page. 64.223.235.254 05:17, April 14, 2012‎ (UTC)

We write what RS state, whether we think it's "true" or not. Your experience may be interesting to you, and it may actually be "true", but you are not a RS, and adding such information is a clear violation of our policy against original research.

Note that a "reliable source" at Wikipedia has a special meaning. It doesn't necessarily mean that what they write is always "true", just that it's verifiable. I know, it's odd, but that's our policy, and if you don't follow it, you'll just get in trouble. You have repeatedly added IMDB as a source, but it's been reverted and the edit summaries I have left state clearly that it's not considered a RS here. Always read the edit summaries which are found in the edit history. IMDB is specifically mentioned at WP:USERGENERATED as NOT a RS. Stop adding it or you will be blocked.

If you have any RS that state that she's 35, I'd like to see them, and possibly use them. As I've stated before, I don't care what age she is. Extrapolating her age from a yearbook is not allowed, unless the yearbook directly states her age. Otherwise such extrapolation violates our policy against synthesis. Read these policies and understand them. If you don't, your stay here will be short-lived.

So far the sources I have rejected have been rejected because our policies don't allow them, not because of what they say or the ages they give. They are simply not considered RS here, and repeatedly adding them violates policy, so stop doing it. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:23, 14 April 2012 (UTC

Brangifer, threaten me all you like. As I have a brain, I can easily change my IP address in less than 30 seconds and come back to Wikipedia before you have a chance to take a bathroom break. So can anyone else you threaten to ban for writing actual facts that disagree with your opinions. So nyah nyah, LOL. And the fact that the sleaziest tabloid on earth, the Daily Mail, is considered by you and Wikipedia to be a "reliable source" is laughable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.223.235.254 (talk) 02:27, April 15, 2012‎ (UTC)

In response to Brangifer, the birth records of everyone born in California over the last 100 years are online and easily accessible. The only uncontested information we have collected about her is that her first name is Jessica, she was born in Northern California sometime between 1977 and 1981, and her mother's maiden name is Chastain. Under those criteria the only match is Jessica M Chastain born on 3/24/1977 in Sacramento, CA. --Shivertimbers433 (talk) 20:28, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

We also know that her birth name was Howard, not Chastain, which she took as her stage name much later. Familysearch.org is a useful site for genealogical research, which I do for our family. It is a user-edited website, and user-edited websites (like this one and IMDB) are NOT normally allowed as sources here. It isn't always reliable. Mormon family members, often young missionaries, send in what they find, and it can get quite confusing, especially when records for multiple people with the same name are submitted and they all get filed under ONE person! It happens all the time. That's why it often has multiple, conflicting, reports for the same person. In my own genealogical research it has caused me much frustration for some branches of the family (fathers, sons and cousins with the same names, and a man marrying the widow of his brother, and naming a son for his brother!), while for other branches I've been quite lucky with one branch and traced it back to 1435 in Hinwick, Bedfordshire, England.

I'm not sure of the procedure for obtaining official birth records from the state of California, but I suspect it costs money. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:56, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I definitely wouldn't say we know her birth name was Howard, which was why that was removed from the article along with her date of birth. There is conflicting information whether her father is actually her stepfather and if she was actually "born" Howard. There are also conflicts if Jessica Chastain is a stage name she took much later, for one her high school yearbook photos refer to her as Jessica Chastain, not Howard. Also the database I cited isn't part of the user-submitted data on Familysearch, the same index of California births appears on other sites with the same information, I only used it here because it displays all of the information like mother's last name without a subscription. --Shivertimbers433 (talk) 03:01, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. Thanks. This really is a confusing situation! It would be nice if she straightened this out, once and for all. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:24, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

But Brangifer says her legal birth record does not count as a source and can't be allowed in the article, while the age listed by the Daily Mail, widely considered to be the most unreliable, unresearched and sleaziest tabloid in the English-speaking world, does count and has therefore been included in the article by him. Go figure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.223.235.254 (talk) 21:25, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I know that it was previously considered OR to use a primary source like a legal birth record, but I know that things change here and I'm in doubt now. I'm going to check on whether we can use it, IF we can get it. It would be nice to confirm that March 24, 1977 date, because a few sources do use it, and we are now using one of them that's considered a RS here. NOTE that I didn't delete it, contrary to your repeated accusation, I actually improved it! I have never deleted a source because of the date, only because the source itself isn't considered reliable here. (It would be nice if you did a bit of investigation before making false charges.) I see that you still haven't read our policy on WP:RS, as you've been instructed to do. "Reliable source" at Wikipedia has a special meaning and you need to learn it. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:56, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Brangifer, sweetie, I don't "need" to do anything because YOU have "instructed" me to. Your "instructions" mean about as much to me as the threats you send to my account that you will banish me if I continue to pursue the age issue. You aren't that important to me, so please get off of your high horse and get over yourself. And you have indeed repeatedly biased the article, not improved it, to make the birth year YOU wanted sound like it was the consensus of the media. It was only after a great deal of argument from several people, including myself, and repeated revisions of the article by you to support the age you like that you finally even acquiesced to include the fact that the Associated Press lists her birth date as 1977 alongside the sleazy tabloids YOU referenced that gave her birth year as 1981, so stop pretending you did that because you wanted to take it upon yourself to improve the article. And I don't care if you and Wikipedia consider sleazy tabloids like the Daily Mail and fluff periodicals like People magazine to be more "reliable sources" than an actual legal birth record by the state of California. They aren't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.223.235.254 (talk) 02:24, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Two of these sources give her date of birth as March 24, 1977 and her birth name as Jessica Michelle Chastain and not Jessica N. Howard as specified on IMDB https://www.dobsearch.com/people-finder/view.php?t=1341320796&searchnum=108493988786 http://www.familytreelegends.com/records/calbirths?c=search&first=jessica&last=chastain&spelling=Exact&4_year=&4_month=0&4_day=0&5=&7=&SubmitSearch.x=0&SubmitSearch.y=0&SubmitSearch=Submit — Preceding unsigned comment added by Travisbickle87 (talk • contribs) 13:10, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, the link http://www.familytreelegends.com/records/calbirths?c=search&first=jessica&last=chastain&spelling=Exact&4_year=&4_month=0&4_day=0&5=&7=&SubmitSearch.x=0&SubmitSearch.y=0&SubmitSearch=Submit shows that there are only 3 Jessica Chastain's registered in the state of California between 1905 and 1995. Obviously the other two could not possibly be her (1984 & 1987). --Travisbickle87 (talk) 13:26, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Some additional information (via Highbeam) regarding her age, the following sources give 35 years (1977 year of birth):

• Dayton Daily News (Dayton, OH), March 18, 2012
• The Boston Globe (Boston, MA), March 24, 2012
• The Associated Press: AP Worldstream, March 13, 2012

Kmhkmh (talk) 15:06, April 26, 2012 (UTC)

We are using the AP ref to back up an age of about 35 (1977 year of birth). -- Brangifer (talk) 04:02, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

My, what a lot of arguing over someone's age... Can we all get along? — Preceding unsigned comment added by L. Thomas W. (talk • contribs) 15:02, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Google News is calling her 35 now. Shall we jump on the bandwagon? All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 07:57, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I think reporters (Daily Mail for example in this case) saying "the xx-year-old Jessica" as throwaway detail in articles are not really "reliable sources" in this case. They are either copying what other reporters are saying or using the same sort of reasoning that has been presented here. As far as I know we don't have a dated interview with Jessica confirming her age or any interview or whatever in which she gives her date of birth. WP:BLPPRIMARY says very clearly "Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses." (original emphasis). Thus I think we continue to say she does not reveal her age or date of birth. --Mirokado (talk) 08:26, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Why is it suddenly "throwaway information" that cannot be included now that the Daily Mail is saying she is 35, when Wikipedia moderators INSISTED in the discussion above that the Daily Mail is a "reliable source" and so HAD to be included as proof of age when they were saying she was six years younger? And since when does the subject of a Wikipedia article get to decide which information about them can be included for "privacy reasons"? Age is a standard piece of information in any Wikipedia article about a person. The fact that she prefers not to reveal it does NOT negate all of the reliable sources that now state she was born in 1977. Who is the obsessed Chastain fan who keeps deleting the many sources that cite her age just because she doesn't want it revealed?70.105.235.51 (talk) 06:13, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Vanity Fair's interview with her states "Chastain is 35." --Shivertimbers433 (talk) 20:09, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, at least that is embedded in the interview, but it is a comment by the journalist, not reporting a response from Jessica. This would not be enough to persuade me to add the information, but if others find it acceptable I will not waste my life trying to remove it, as long as it has that or a better reference. It has just been added rather untidily. Please can someone who actually wants it in the article complete the reference, use the {{Birth based on age as of date}} template (or whatever) to compute the year(s) and update all places in the article consistently. The Persondata entry can't use the template, please provide the appropriate year range explicitly there. --Mirokado (talk) 11:22, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

The Vanity Fair article does claim that Chastain is 35, but...that doesn't necessarily mean she was born in 1977. She could have been born in September-December of 1976. (That said, I removed the year.) Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 08:32, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, there's no question that she was born in 1977. California Birth Index. So it's just a matter of time. Since most mainstream media sources have caught up with this, why don't we as well? All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 05:08, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, that still hasn't beeen proven. If you look earlier in the discussion (granted, it is a looooong discussion), there are also plenty of sources claiming that she was born in 1981. The smoking gun would be what comes out of Jessica's own mouth, which we have yet to see. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 16:25, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

But the California Birth Index lists a Jessica Chastain, mother's maiden name Chastain, as born on March 24, 1977. No one like that on March 24, 1981. So how could she have been born on March 24, 1981? All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 05:55, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say she was definitely born in 1981 (or 1977, for that matter); I was simply giving an example. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 07:57, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Everything on google news at the moment says 35, and nothing says 31. Aren't we just sticking to the wrong side of history a little too long? All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 09:27, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Why not put both? On, for example, Dina Meyer's page, when there was confusion over her birth year, with some sources saying one year and some saying another, both were listed. Why not just do that here until something more concrete is available? Tiller54 (talk) 21:45, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Why not put both? Because 1981 is on the wrong side of history. Most news sources aren't even claiming it anymore. And it's not factually accurate. That's a good trifecta of reasons. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 10:39, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello everyone. I have added 3 24 1977 as JC's birthday because of NY Times, a reliable reputable source. I titled infox box 'jessica chastain' since that is her professional name. I put 'Jessican N Howard' in her 'early life section' with a ^{[citation needed]} tag because that needs to be sourced. 108.56.237.111 (talk) 00:15, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi and thanks for posting here. As far as "JNH" is concerned, let's update with that if we have a reliable source, the current ref just says "JH". Yes the infobox should say "JC" as that is the name she is known by.

The "35" assertion with or without an actual date of birth is quite wide-spread but its origin and justification is unclear. Contemporaneous "reliable sources" were also saying "30" and Jessica herself is on record as refusing to say how old she is. Generally for biographies of living people we follow their self-identification for controversial information. My interpretation would be that Jessica self-identifies as someone who does not reveal her age and we should respect this: the information is controversial if she chooses not to reveal it. The BLP policy also excludes using information from official records such as birth certificates, so if newspapers are just publishing information from those we are not allowed to repeat it. No other source of that information has been suggested and there is not even clarity about which records if any might be hers. We still inform the reader accurately about the subject of the article, even if not in the same routine way as in other articles.

It would certainly help to reference the first para of the Personal Life section with the interview in which she says she does not reveal her age. That is quite an ironic piece as the interviewer also refers to her age ("30") without saying how he "knows" that! --Mirokado (talk) 01:12, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

(update) I found a more recent interview and have added that as a new reference with a quote, no change to the current article content in that respect. --Mirokado (talk) 03:06, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello Mirokado, So because Jessica won't reveal her dob we leave it out? I thought a reliable source is the threshold. The NY Times is the source, AP is the source for the photo. Since when do we have to judge how NYT got their information? Why is the NYT to not be believed?108.56.237.111 (talk) 11:53, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that is what I'm saying. We most certainly do not reproduce everything newspapers or magazines publish merely because they are newspapers or magazines, for example dates of birth of non-notable children (although you will be able to find occasional examples because editors persist in adding information contrary to BLP policy, see this edit for example) or paparazzi shots of celebrities sunbathing nude in supposed privacy, even when they have been acknowledged as genuine.

"Since when do we have to judge how NYT got their information?" We don't, explicitly, in general, but we use secondary sources confident that they are reporting primary sources that we could, and often can, find as well and which include sources meeting Wikipedia's policies. For example, a prince's or politician's date of birth is very widely known and acknowledged, an athlete's date of birth must be public knowledge because of eligibility for competitions and most actors do not make a big secret of their date of birth, often welcoming the publicity for birthday parties and so on. We are confident in these cases that the information is not solely based on (but could presumably be supported by) records such as birth certificates and the information does not represent an invasion of privacy. In this case those few sources which mention how they "know" her date of birth say "according to so-and-so" (hearsay) or "I have looked at official records" (just as much of an invasion of privacy as if I went and looked) and Jessica is on record stating that she does not reveal her age and carefully protects her and her family's privacy.

"Why is the NYT to not be believed?" That is not relevant to the points I am making. I would be happy to use the NYT as a source if Jessica also provides or acknowledges the same information, for example in an interview or widely-publicised birthay party. --Mirokado (talk) 22:02, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

"So because Jessica won't reveal her dob we leave it out"? - what is the source that Chastain refuses to reveal her dob? Has she ever been asked "When were you born?" in an interview, and replied with, "No, f you, I'm not saying"? All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 01:32, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Please see the ref in the Personal life section which I added recently and mentioned above. This has a direct quote which I have quoted in the ref:

Chastain has not revealed her age to the media, "Jessica Chastain: Fame is daunting". Belfast Telegraph. Cover Media. September 3, 2012. Retrieved October 22, 2012. Jessica doesn't speak about her age to too many people. ... 'I never say. Clearly, I'm not 15. But I like mystery,' she said.

--Mirokado (talk) 21:24, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

This is thoroughly ridiculous. The vast majority of all facts included in Wikipedia articles do not come directly from the subject of the article themselves, but from reliable news sources. So why in the world are people so desperate to keep a secret of Jessica Chastain's age, which has now been agreed upon by all media sources (within the past nine months, every article about her that states an age has said she is 35, including the New York Times and all Associated Press articles)? It is NOT up to the subject of Wikipedia articles to determine what facts should be included about them, and it is completely standard to include ages in articles about people. Now someone has gone so far as to delete all referenced sources which even discuss her age because they were all agreeing she is 35. It is just bizarre that one actress gets special treatment in keeping a basic fact of her life secret. It appears that when tabloids had her age wrong and listed her as being six years younger than she is, her fans were insistent that this information be included, but now that actual reliable news sources have agreed she was born in 1977, all evidence is erased and people are crying that her "privacy" must be respected. It is NOT the mandate of Wikipedia to respect privacy, it is to share factual information.70.105.235.51 (talk) 06:05, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree it seems a bit of an overly zealous and overly literal application of wp policies/guidelines.--Kmhkmh (talk) 16:22, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Responding to 70* and Kmhkmh: it is neither "thoroughly ridiculous" not "overly zealous" to apply Wikipedia's BLP policies. As already explained, in most cases dates (and places) of birth are well known, unchallenged and the secondary sources we cite are consistent with other sources also allowed by Wikipedia's policies, so editors can add well sourced content as they wish and the policies, although complied with, do not need to be "applied" in any overt sense. In a few cases like this, where the subject states clearly that she does not reveal this information, the policies do restrict what can be said. We cannot ignore a policy just because it does not produce the result we want. If you disagree with the policy you should seek consensus to change it. The policy has a talk page and there is also a BLP noticeboard. --Mirokado (talk) 15:05, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

The problem is not the policy as such, but its interpretation regarding this case and the interpretation that some editors such as as you argue can be seen as overly zealous. It is not clear to me, why there would be a WP:BLP issue at all, when stating a date that was was widely publicized in serious media. Nor do I read her "mystery" comment as statement of having information about her birth not being published at all (not volunteering information is not the same having a serious issue with the information being published). There is no line in WP:BLP stating you cannot used published information on persons date of birth. There is only a general line about the use of primary sources (such as public records) and original research, i.e. WP editors cannot use those to determine a date of birth of their own. However there is no need for that here, even though it was used on the discussion page for a (personal) confirmation of the published information. That however is a legitimate thing to do (fact checking/confirming the published secondary sources you plan to use).

Furthermore if a policy or guideline gets in the way of writing a proper encyclopedic article, it very well can be "ignored" in rare cases with a proper justification (see WP:IAR and Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines). Also I'd like to add a WP:BLP violation or issue doesn't simply exists, because an individual fellow editor claims so. It exists when a large number or the majority of editors after careful consideration comes to the conclusion that there is one indeed.

Yes there is policy page and the notice board as well as this discussion page and various other project pages, where the case may be discussed.--Kmhkmh (talk) 17:36, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. The most directly relevant part of the BLP policy relating to dates is WP:BLPPRIVACY:

Privacy of personal information and using primary sources

... people increasingly regard their full names and dates of birth as private. Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object.

It is clear from the BBC quote above (and others) that Jessica regards her date of birth as private and that nobody can reasonably infer that she does not object to its being published. The lead of the policy (WP:BLP) states: "Biographies of living persons ('BLP's) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy."

Addressing your points in particular:

• Yes you can challenge whether or not a policy applies to a particular case, that is why I mentioned the BLP noticeboard, but I honestly don't see your being successful if the subject states in interviews that she does not reveal the information.
• "I never say" seems pretty clearly to imply "I regard the information as private and don't want it published" rather than "I regard that as public information and don't mind if it is published". (Distinguishing here between properly private information which may be have been published anyway and something like a reported criminal conviction which someone might well not want to have published but is a matter of public interest).
• Fact-checking: when we use secondary sources we can fact-check them against other sources which imply the subject does not object to the publication (already mentioned as examples: interviews or publicised birthday parties). We do not have any such source in this case. We can also check for sources which would cause us to "reasonably infer" that the subject objects to the publication. In most cases we find none, in this case we find lots.
• You require consensus (or at the least good-natured acquiescence) to ignore rules, and things like BLP or copyright violations, making legal threats and various other matters are virtually never ignorable.

-- Mirokado (talk) 00:49, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Personally I don't really care much whether the date is included or not and I don't intend to waste my time on that. I just wanted to point out that is not a clear cut WP:BLP violation as you might think.

As far as WP:BLPPRIVACY is concerned you left out an important part ("If the subject complains about the inclusion of the date of birth, or the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year."). Chastain is clearly notable not borderline notable and her age (at least at ballpark number) can be seen as an information of public interest. The solution, the policy suggest, is to simply state the year of birth, which we currently do not. Also I'd like to point out again, that while Chastain has made clear that she doesn't intend to volunteer information regarding her date of birth, afaik she has not yet explicitly complained about published dates be it in WP or elsewhere. All in all contrary to you I still see no good reason (and no WP:BLP violation) that would prevent us from the stating the year of birth at least. So what we have here is 2 different assessments of 2 individual editors and depends on the bulk of the editors involved here and which assessment they might share.--Kmhkmh (talk) 01:20, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Agreed! All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 10:21, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

The mainstream media is absolutely insisting that Jessica Chastain is 35. I can't find a single match for 31 on the current batch of articles on Google News. I think we're on the really wrong side of history here, more so with each day. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 23:49, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

It seems that Jessica Chastain's biological father has been publically identified as Michael Monasterio - see for example this article. How do we want to handle this in the article? All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 10:23, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

BTW, in case anyone was curious, the surname "Monasterio", in this case, is Spanish, not Italian. If Michael Monasterio was Jessica's biological father, that would make her one quarter Spanish (Michael's father, Edward Monasterio, was the son of Spanish immigrants - here he is on the 1930 Census). As such, if Jessica Chastain wins the Best Actress Oscar this weekend, she would be the second person with any known Spanish/Hispanic/etc. ancestry to win in that category (Hilary Swank, whose maternal grandmother was Hispanic, and also from California, was the first, and won twice). All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 22:05, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Poor thing, it feels so terrible to analyse something that she doesn't want to talk about. --smarojit ^{(buzz me)} 11:35, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I think it should be included in the article, at least mentioning her father since it seems clear that is fact. She will probably discuss this in public at somepoint (I don't see how she can avoid talking about things like her age, real name, parents etc...I mean her public profile is so high..she could be winning an Oscar on Sunday! Anyway, someone said that her name on her birth certificate is Jessica Chastain, (even though she has claimed her real name is Jessica Howard, but we know now Howard is the name her mom took when hiding from her father) The new information says that her parents were together and even had another daughter , Juliet, who killed herself. Even if they weren't married, I would think her birth name would be Jessica Monasterio. HesioneHushabye (talk)

There is a record of a Juliet Monasterio born in California, but not Jessica Monasterio. Only Jessica Chastain. You can search for yourself. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 22:05, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

That is so strange. Not only because her parents were together when she was born but that they had another daughter a year later and named her Monasterio? ...

it does say Jessica *M* Chastain. perhaps the M stands for Monasterio? in any case, it's clear Michael is her father and Juliet was her sister and that info should be included on her profile.

HesioneHushabye (talk) 03:10, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

No, the M. in her middle name stands for Michelle, which comes from Public Records, which states she is 35, and has lived in Sacramento and New York City. So, this substantiates that it is in fact her, and the former reference to the middle name of M. would be correct as Michelle. Furthermore, Spokeo confirmed it as well, and it had her birthdate in March of 1977, so it is reliable. On the subject of Jessica N. Howard, nothing in the public record confirmed it in the least, so I think that IMDB is flat out wrong. Also, her parents were not married at the time she was born, so this leads me to believe that she was given her mothers family name of Chastain and not Monasterio, which is a very common practice for kids born out of wedlock.HotHat (talk) 06:37, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

• By the way, the California birth records database lists her sister as having both Chastain and Monasterio surnames.HotHat (talk) 06:49, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Her sister's last name is not Monasterio, rather Chastain by the source above in the previous discussion, so her name was Juliet Christina Chastain. She was born on December 13, 1978, which is perfectly in line with March 24, 1977, so she had 21 months in between pregnancies.HotHat (talk) 04:43, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
    • I would love to see if someone could find out if Jessica Chastain's biological parents were married or not, which I tend to believe not, but I would love to see if someone could verify that information. The source calls her sister Juliet Chastain not Monasterio, which probably was taken from her deceased biological fathers facebook page.HotHat (talk) 04:45, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Tried changing the infobox pic to this picture from 2013 Cannes Film Festival

Since it is more recent and a better angle. But was reverted back to this picture from 2011

because "it makes her look older than she is". Don't know if I agree with this so I'm wanting to get consensus. Lady Lotus (talk) 14:26, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I prefer the older version but a different angle one

.....--Stemoc (talk) 14:55, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Ew I like that one, if it's all good with everyone, I'll place that in infobox and the 2013 pic in the article. Yes or no? Lady Lotus (talk) 15:21, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Don't like it. Sorry. Let's wait for more comments. --smarojit ^HD 15:25, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

this is also an option...The image doesn't need to be new, it just needs to look good in the article..the current one is good but honestly, I prefer pics where the person is atleast looking towards the camera...not sideshots.--Stemoc (talk) 15:35, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I like the last 2 you posted, they are better head shots Lady Lotus (talk) 15:48, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

New interview http://insidemovies.ew.com/2015/01/08/jessica-chastain-dropped-out-high-school/ She obviously didn't graduate from El Camino in '95. She was part of that class, but didn't attend school enough to graduate. She says she got her adult diploma. Presumably in '96. Let Me Eat Cake (talk) 23:12, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

The Personal Life section of the article names the actual street where she resides. Yes, it's cited by two articles, but does that really need to be included here? It seems way more information than is necessary about a public figure, and hardly worthy of an encyclopedia article. Does anyone have an opinion against removing it? -- Uncle Cheech (talk) 08:07, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I am fine with simply stating that she lives in New York City. Krimuk|90 (talk) 08:10, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

• "Jerri Hastey (@seedonthego) - Twitter". twitter.com. Retrieved February 17, 2017.
• "Seed On The Go - CLOSED - Santa Rosa, CA". yelp.com. Retrieved February 17, 2017.
• "seed - CLOSED - Santa Rosa, CA". yelp.com. Retrieved February 17, 2017.

Xb2u7Zjzc32 (talk) 12:17, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jessica Chastain. 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/20150704001210/http://www.lafca.net/years/2011.html to http://www.lafca.net/years/2011.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) 23:35, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm initiating a discussion here since the previous version of the article did POV cherry-picking among sources for the subject's birthplace and included two false statements that none of the sources made. (No source said "near" Sonoma but rather "in" Sonoma, and The New Biographical Dictionary of Film: Sixth Edition did not give a middle name.)

Moreover, a previous editor chose to willfully ignore WP:RS sources such as Biography.com that state the subject's birthplace Sacramento. He did the same regarding differing claims as to her middle name. It is POV to pick-and-choose among equally RS sources in order to insert whichever claim "feels" right to one editor unilaterally. WP:BLP places an especially high premium on accuracy, and when RS sources disagree, we include both claims until and if a definitive source emerges. I invite that BLP-violating editor to discuss the issue on this talk page. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:13, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm okay with the revised version. Please check my edit summaries. Cheers! --[[:|Krimuk2.0]] (talk) 07:08, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Lookin' good! Thanks for really giving everything a good read and being collaborative and collegial. A pleasure to work with such a careful and meticulous editor as you! --Tenebrae (talk) 18:56, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

@Tenebrae: & @Krimuk2.0:, would it be out of the question to list her birthplace as Sacramento County, California? This is corroborated at least by The California Birth Index , and it would give some specificity to her birthplace without making an assumption about which city she was born in. Just a thought. --Drown Soda (talk) 08:50, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Hmm ... good question. Sonoma is in Sonoma County, so it would seem as if the California Birth Index, a secondary reporting of primary birth records, has put the issue to rest. Since we probably need to address the fact some sources give Sonoma, I'd like to suggest we give Sacramento County in the infobox and that we edit the extant footnote to read: "While some sources give her birthplace as either the town of Sonoma or the city of Sacramento, birth records indicate only Sacramento County", and then continue with the rest of the extant footnote. What do you and User:Krimuk2.0 think? --Tenebrae (talk) 18:43, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Yep, that's fair enough, I think. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 19:54, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Since we all seem to be in agreement, I'll go ahead and make the update. Good collaboration1--Tenebrae (talk) 21:58, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks to the both of you. :) --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:50, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jessica Chastain. 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/20160514010922/https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSnGNX7kyHxq%201c4%20GNW20140211 to https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSnGNX7kyHxq+1c4+GNW20140211

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) 16:45, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jessica Chastain. 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/20160409123644/http://www.stylist.co.uk/people/interviews-and-profiles/interview-jessica-chastain to http://www.stylist.co.uk/people/interviews-and-profiles/interview-jessica-chastain

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) 00:00, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

This edit request to Jessica Chastain has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

61.228.153.230 (talk) 13:56, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Can somebody please change the "Chastain at the 2010 Mill Valley Film Festival" picture ? I mean this is definitely not Jessica's best look. It's a bad shot to be honest.

Not done for now: Please upload a NON-COPYRIGHT picture to Wikimedia Commons (use "Upload file" in the left hand column).
Almost all images that you find on the internet, in magazines etc. are copyright, and, unless you took the picture yourself, you will need to show proof that it is not copyright.
Once the image is uploaded, please reactivate this request, (by changing answered=y to answered=no in the top line) and give the exact title of the image you want added. -

I think the paragraph about strong-willed women, feminist themes, etc. is POV for obvious reasons. lo prenu .katmakrofan. (talk) 00:33, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

"Feminist themes" is discussed and cited in the article. It is also completely appropriate for an article about Jessica Chastain..

For your convience, here is a google news search that demonstrates my point: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Jessica+Chastain%22+%22Feminist%22&tbm=nws&num=99 Coffeeandcrumbs (talk) 01:47, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

"Obvious reasons" may not be so obvious to others. Please suggest concrete improvements rather than vague complaints about article content. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:46, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Leave the image at the stable version for now please. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:35, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

NeilN, do you think this is acceptable after yesterday's brouhaha? I don't have a problem with this new image, but the article is already scheduled for the main page with a different picture. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 17:48, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't know what Film Enthusiast was thinking, changing the photo without participating in the RFC - I'll add a warning to their talk page. Another editor has reverted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NeilN (talk • contribs) 19:14, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, clearly, Krimuk2.0 and I are in agreement here. That's something, at least.--Tenebrae (talk) 22:16, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Pretty nice picture though. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:03, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

It's a lovely picture, and I previously used it in the article. The only problem is the image quality (74 KB). --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 09:17, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I apologize for, in part, starting this edit war. If the new image that is currently in use is the one that has been agreed to be chosen by most editors then so let it be. Film Enthusiast (talk) 23:47, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

So have we come to a consensus to use the current image? Film Enthusiast (talk) 23:48, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I would like to gain some insight and other opinions from my fellow editors about this image. File:Jessica Chastain by Gage Skidmore.jpg

Would this image seem better qualified for use? It's from the same photographer and in the same setting, just a different angle. In my opinion it seems a better fit because it does not show the forearm which seems distracting in the photograph and her mouth is not open which, like Tenebrae mentioned before, "is axiomatic among photographers that you don't do portraits with people's mouths open." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Film Enthusiast (talk • contribs) 00:51, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Is this really an issue that constitutes the "edit warring" title? Come on. The Impartial Truth (talk) 06:56, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

I would really like there not to be edit warring over the image when the article is a TFA so two options:

1. Everyone here agrees to leave the image as is and the RFC closes normally.
2. I can ask another admin (I'm thinking Oshwah) to close the RFC early so editors can point to consensus.

--NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:34, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

The California Birth Index lists her birth name as "Jessica M. Chastain", which corroborates her full "Jessica Michelle Chastain" name listed in the cited The New Biographical Dictionary of Film: Sixth Edition. In contrast, the cited UK Independent story uses the IMDB to claim "Jessica Howard" was her birth name; IMDB is not exactly a reliable source. Thus, the claim by the UK Telegraph she was born "Jessica Howard" is not supported by evidence.

Thus, I propose her birth name be changed to Jessica Michelle Chastain. Arbor to SJ (talk) 20:00, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Isn't it odd that the term 'filmography' is not used at all in this article? Up to now I thought this term would be standard instead of 'Acting credits'. Mr.Steelydan (talk) 22:28, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

I believe that is because her work includes stage credits. Coffeeandcrumbs (talk) 22:43, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes i find that odd too and actually annoying. Stage credits and other activities are no reason not to offer a filmography. If for some reason article maintainers think a filmography does fit well with the current article structure it still should/could be created as an separate artile that is linked here like it is doe with other actors (see for instance John Wayne#Filmography or Humphrey Bogart#Filmography)--Kmhkmh (talk) 12:47, 19 November 2019 (UTC)