France Start‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Biography: Actors and Filmmakers Start‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers.

The beginning part of this entry is written like a fan page. 70.21.48.194 (talk) 23:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have permission to use that image?

There are many quetions as to whether the photos on the source page are actually public domain. RickK 23:24, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure this image is straight off the VHS package.
Tualha 06:09, Nov 12, 2003 (UTC)

Ah, I found the Wikipedia:Possible_copyright_infringements page, it's listed.
Tualha 06:15, Nov 12, 2003 (UTC)

There are lots of much better photos of Audrey Tautou on internet. Why just this one was picked?

Riose, 1.1.2005, 13:51

Do add a better one if you wish, the picture was picked by one person only and I agree that it is not the best possible. I am not an expert on images here, but the pictures in the net are copyrighted and should not be used, I am not sure if pictures of actors fall under fair use. You can sign your comments by typing ~~~~ after your comments. Lapinmies 16:56, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Photo looks like a mugshot. 24.255.24.239 04:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, there are much better photos of her out there Kotare 12:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

She was definitely known once Amélie was released worldwide (which was in 2001-2).

 The new intro is rubbish.  Who gives a crap about Da Vinci?

I agree. It's mentioned twice before even getting to filmography, and the movie just came out today. Take out the "best known until davinci code" stuff, that is opinion. Automagically 23:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB is a crappy source for info, so we definitely shouldn't follow what they say. Does anyone have an actual good source for her birth date? Like an interview/in-depth profile? Mad Jack O'Lantern 22:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article calls her 26 - in 2005. Looks good.[1] Mad Jack O'Lantern 22:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article calls her 29 in 2006...also looks good.[2] --Fallout boy 19:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Errrr I hate age confusion in cases where I can't look up the birth certificate on Rootsweb. Mad Jack O'Lantern 19:40, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another source says 27...[3] Mad Jack O'Lantern 01:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "smoking gun" is this case is probably her school alumni page[4], her school certificate says she was born in 1976.--Fallout boy 20:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe they got it wrong. Lapinmies 20:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So the school says she's 29, and the interview here (last link in article) says she was 27 when she read DaVinci, before she auditioned for the role, which could be about 2 years ago. It seems pretty clear, then, that her age is 29. Any objections to removing the possible 27 from the article? And could the anon with the abusive edit summaries calm down a bit? Staecker 14:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But then again, that article also says that she was 27 on Sunday May 28, 2006. Also most of the news articles about her in Google News say that she is 27 and some say 29, it is far from clear. Lapinmies 14:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh- you're right. That source is no "smoking gun", and shouldn't be singled out as our reference. Staecker 15:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about this interview http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5anfFlobAnM, she says she was born in 78. Lapinmies 21:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

her birth date is August 8, 1976 - http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audrey_Tautou, http://french.imdb.com/name/nm0851582/, http://www.nndb.com/people/614/000086356/, http://audrey.amelie.free.fr/module.php?nom=biographie and everywhere in french sources it is 1976. --SKirthova 23:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB is notoriously unreliable, it has a similiar system as Wikipedia and it is easy to add disinformation to the bios. For example Encyclopedia Britannica says 1978, and I would say that they are reliable and have fact checkers. -Lapinmies 19:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BORN IN 1976 (birth certificate number 6672/1976) http://www.lesgensducinema.com/affiche_acteur.php?mots=tautou&nom_acteur=TAUTOU%20Audrey&ident=55466&debut=0&record=0 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.200.233.5 (talk) 23:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a birth certificate. The actress herself confirmed it in the youtube link above (the video has been deleted, however; anyone know another?), and the Encyclopedia Britannica lists her birth date as 1978 here. I'll take the actress and EB over IMDB and foreign language wikis any day of the week. faithless (^speak) 23:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to have (I have asked one) a copy of her birth certificate (I'm french it's easy) in a few days. Can will I send you it by mail ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.200.233.5 (talk) 23:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Her birth certificate says 1976. Also the Sunday Times Style Magazine from 8th June 2008 says she is 31 years old. YouTube not reliable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.80.31 (talk) 23:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh...how many times do we have to go over this? Tautou herself said that she was born in 1978. End of story. faithless (^speak) 02:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fact is no date can be considered definitive. She claims to be born in 1978, but it is not unknown for actresses to lie about their age (especially when they are hitting 30). There are plenty of sources that 1976. Unless someone can provide a copy of her birth certificate both dates should included while it is disputed. Melody Perkins (talk) 19:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The citations claiming she is born in 1978 are no more valid than the citations that claim she was born in 1976. I don't understand why 1978 is taking priority here, since none of the references are official sources and none of them quote her explicitly CONFIRMING her date of birth. 79.67.85.237 (talk) 06:41, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, Encyclopaedia Britannica is a far more reliable source that IMDb. Second, the link above (now dead) linked to an interview on YouTube with Tautou from The da Vinci Code in which the actress herself states that she was born in 1978. End of discussion. faithless (^speak) 17:19, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, the YouTube interview isn't accessible so is irrelevant as a citation. Secondly, the NNDB biography gives her college alma mater as a reference for her date of birth which is a valid source in my book. I think given the lack of a citable source of her confirming her birth year there is enough evidence suggesting that it could be either. Both dates should be provided given the lack of a definitive source. As you can see many editors think the case is strong for the 1976 date so it's hardly 'end of discussion' since you alone don't solely make the decision on what makes the article. 79.67.72.94 (talk) 10:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most editors of this article saw the video, as this has been going on far longer than you've been a part of it, so it is completely relevant. NNDB is not a reliable source. Encyclopædia Britannica, Variety and books punlished by reputable publishing houses are. faithless (^speak) 15:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter if the Queen herself saw the YouTube video - facts have to be verifible by citations through the article. While Britannica may be the most credible reference, the fact that there are MANY other sources that cite 1976 then it is obviously not definite, and it damages the integrity of the article by omitting it as a possible date of birth. In such a case, only a statement by official representation (i.e. agent/manager/Tautou herself) or a birth certificate will really suffice in choosing one date over the other. I suggest you refer the article for mediation if you really want one date chosen over the other. 79.67.66.140 (talk) 17:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a copy of the video. I wouldn't consider her claim as a definitive source though, as age fabrication is not that unusual. To add to the confusion, she said in an interview published in Elle in October 2004 she was 27... [5] (I assume her age has been transcribed correctly). I'd say the dates mentioned on her school's website are pretty convincing. Based on these contradictory findings, I think the article should mention both dates. Korg (talk) 19:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is worth noting that English isn't her first language either and she might have confused the date. It seems she has claimed both dates at some point which indicates she is either lying or incorrectly translated her date of birth, or has been misquoted. The 1976 date correllates with biographical dates such as her school alumnus. While some editors may be swayed either way, a case exists for both dates being mentioned. If we are going to go with one specific date it should be done by a vote rather than one editor taking it upon himself to delete sections of the article. 79.67.101.231 (talk) 22:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I propose this as a compromise:

Audrey Tautou (Template:IPA-fr; born 9 August, 1978, alternately reported as 1976)...

It should not be written 1976/1978, as this is just plain ugly and encyclopedic - she wasn't born in both years. Since 1978 is by far the better sourced of the two, I argue that that date should be given preference. I hope this is agreeable to everyone. faithless (^speak) 22:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a compromise since it gives one date precedence over the other. The 'compromise' is what I have done by giving both dates an equal platform. If you want to follow that up with clarification be my guest. 79.67.101.231 (talk) 22:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One date (1978) is extensively sourced with reliable sources, the other is not - therefore, giving one precedence is the obvious way to go. Giving the 1976 date any mention whatsoever is being generous, as there are no reliable source supporting that date (though it is, obviously, inarguable that the date is often given, no matter how erroneously). faithless (^speak) 04:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Her school alumnus seems like a pretty reliable source to me, and the 2004 Elle magazine where she is actually quoted as saying she is 27 implying she was born in either 1976 or 1977 also seems very reliable. Since most of the French sources cite 1976 then I don't see the 1978 date being more compelling in this respect. The truth is it could be either date, a strong case exists for both and if you can't accept that you shouldn't be editing Wikipedia. The only source that would put this debate to rest would be a link or a copy of an official document. Besides everyone knows that the '/' in 1976/1978 means 'or' not 'and' so its usage is correct in this context. Like I've already said, it's inappropriate for one editor to dictate what date is used so if one date is to be given precednce over the other there should be a canvass of opinion. Until it is decided one way or the other both dates should have equal importance.79.67.27.160 (talk) 10:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Her school is not a reliable source, neither is a fan page which claims to transcribe an article from Elle. faithless (^speak) 22:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Reliable sources section does not preclude her school alumnus as a source, but as a point of note it cites "The Times" (in Britain) as an example of a high quality source, which is among the citations I have provided if you bothered to check them. 79.75.92.168 (talk) 00:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can see a scan of the Elle article here (you'll have to log in first). Why do you consider her school is not reliable? Korg (talk) 15:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The current compromise wording seems quite reasonable. Neither date seems to have a significantly more compelling case made for it; look at the dueling 22 August 2008 citations! Until the matter is decisively settled, this looks like a good way to handle it. JJL (talk) 03:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto on the compromise, however a little bit more information in the article would be nice. I'd like to see a short explanation of the discrepancy in sources, so readers like myself don't have to read through the talk page to find out why she has two birthdates. I'd add it in myself but I'm not sure how best to integrate it.---Puff (talk) 01:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it short and simple: "Tautou's date of birth is unclear since some sources state she was born in 1976 and others in 1978." I'd put it as the second sentence in the "Early Life" section just after where it says she was born, and before it gives her parent's occupations.Betty Logan (talk) 01:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does Audrey Tatou have foreign origins. (Like Jean Reno) If so what is it?

She once said in some interview that many people think that she has an ethnic background, but that as far as she knows she is 100%-French. Lapinmies 20:40, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Tautou' sounds like a Greek-Cypriot surname to me. I'm Greek-Cypriot so I should probably know this for sure, but I unfortunately do not. I do know, however, that 'ou' is a very common ending for surnames in Cyprus. I've done a quick google search, but I couldn't find anything. There might be something to this though. ~~ Zestos, 10:42 GMT, 24 Jan 2008

Audrey Tautou is seen (by ourselves french people) as the typical french parisienne girl. She is not seen as "occitan" or "Auvergnate" since most people don't know she's from Auvergne, and only a part of Auvergne is usually in former occitan-speaking areas - and actually not the one where Audrey is coming from. Actually most french people don't even know what "occitan" means, and when they know they rarely would associate Auvergne with it because of the geographical position in central France, and not in the "midi".

As a french person I find it very weird that she might not seen as a tipical french girl, she has the majoritary common features here. What do you expect french people to look like? To Germans, English or other northern European nation? Most french people have brown hair and brown eyes. Here, what is considered "white"(meaning tall/blond and blue eyed) in American standards is a minority of the population. In france, and ethnic look would have more likely be this one: http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2300/1901563345_a46c381429.jpg This is definitely not an average french look. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.224.59.166 (talk) 20:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added an info box, a screenshot for her pic and various bits of relevant information from IMDB.com.

Great, I would just like to point out that the screenshot is from À la folie... pas du tout, Not from Amelie. Lapinmies 17:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ack, I didn't think I could remember it from Amelie. Ok, I'll fix that on the image info page. Merci.

Added a section on her future career taking info from interview and IMDB.

i thought she was 31. - Macus —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.127.90 (talk) 12:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re: "born in Beaumont in the Puy-de-Dôme department of Auvergne, and was raised in Montluçon in the nearby Allier department"

Please forgive my ignorance of French geopolitcal demarcation terms, but is "department" the best word to use here? Is there any of term like "county", "township", "parish", "section", etc that better applies, or is this right English word to describe it? Apologize for being Anglo-American-centric, but this is the English wikipedia and all, or just for my ignorance of Audrey's wonderful home country. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Piperdown (talk • contribs) 16:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

'Department' is indeed the correct word, it's the French equivalent of a British county. See departments of France. Cop 633 01:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the comment "Montluçon, Allier, Occitania" is ridiculously misused. "Occitania" doesn't mean any political delimitation but is just a rarely used term that defines the lands were the local dialects (now extincted) were of langue d'oc variant, instead of langue d'oil. Anyway this is wrong since Allier departement is in the north of Auvergne, were the local dialects were of langue d'oil type and not langue d'oc like in the south of Auvergne.

I delete immediatly that meaningless wrong comment.

Is there a definitive source on her birth year that we could cite in this article? NNDB says 1976 citing her college... [6] Ritto Revolto 09:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Above on this page there is a YouTube video of her saying that she was born in 1978. That seems pretty definitive to me, unless she's lying. Staecker 11:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 02:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is tainted by French syntax, especially in prepositions. A native English speaker should edit it to fix the problems. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wuapinmon (talk • contribs) 16:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Audrey Tautou is RUMORED to be the face of chanel No5 its not the facts NO ONE from chanel has said it yet at all only saying that cause shes in the chanel film we don't know yet please stop putting false information down 82.22.206.205 (talk) 03:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The information is quite thoroughly sourced. Unless you can prove that the Los Angeles Times and the Daily Telegraph are wrong, there's no reason to change it. faithless (^speak) 03:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

no its not if she was named the face of chanel someone from there would've said like they have done before when keira knighltey replaced kate moss they said about it right away but they haven't yet lets wait unill they say probably don't want to yet as nicoles contact hasn't finish so there is reason to change it as for now it's not true don't just think cause Los Angeles Timesand the Daily Telegraph said it doesn't make it true they probably got it from perez hilton or where ever he got it from lets wait untill don't start adding things that have not been comfirmed yet IT NEED TO BE CHANGED THE Los Angeles Timesand the Daily Telegraph DON'T COUNT AS PROBER INFO THEY JUST TAKES STORIES FROM EACH OTHER WAIT UNTILL PEOPLE FROM CHANEL HAS SAID WHICH THEY HAVEN'T YET SO FAR ITS STILL A RUMOR82.22.206.205 (talk) 04:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, please don't yell. Second, you probably should have a look at this policy. Wikipedia is concerned with what is verifiable, not necessarily what is true. Please don't remove information that has been properly cited by reliable sources. faithless (^speak) 05:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-ngh-9eeMo Directed by Jeunet! Billbrock (talk) 04:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know the names of Audrey's parents? I've never stumbled across their names and I'm writing an article on her life. Thanks- Samantha555 (talk) 03:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This page [[7]] states that her mothers name is Évelyn Tautou. Thats all I know. brisse (talk) 10:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the sentence "In France, many consider her as the "typical Occitan Auvergnate." - it should mean a type of visage? However, i don't see the word Occitan or Auvergnate in the ref. link either... --JanicekJiri (talk) 01:09, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

removed portrait--subjective rendering of the actress, a real photograph would really be more appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.244.45.251 (talk) 02:32, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a real one would be better, but that's an argument for replacing the portrait rather than just getting rid of it. Betty Logan (talk) 02:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Someone keeps removing the portrait. While I agree a real photograph is preferable, as it stands there isn't one available due to copyright reasons. Wikipedia policy makes it quite clear in such cases user created illustarions, drawings and diagrams are an acceptable substitute: Wikipedia:OI#Original_images. What's more, they are not only acceptable but encouraged: "Wikipedia editors are encouraged to take photographs or draw pictures or diagrams and upload them, releasing them under the GFDL or another free license, to illustrate articles." User created images do not constitute "Original Research" provided they "do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments". Clearly the image does not present an idea, just her physical likeness. As such Wikipedia policy makes it clear that in the absence of a photo an illustration is acceptable, and actually encouraged. I would like the editor to consider these comments before removing the image again. Betty Logan (talk) 16:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We could do with some impartial assistance please. There is a disupte over whether to include this image on the profile:

First of all I didn't add it, so I have no vested interest in retaining it but I think it captures her likeness well and is a good compromise given that a photograph is not freely available. Another editor thinks that drawings should not be included. However, I disagree with his view for a number of reasons. Wikipedia policy states that user created illustrations, diagrams, drawings etc are acceptable: Wikipedia:OI#Original_images. What is more, Wikipedia policy encourages such user created images to illustrate the articles given the restrictions that copyrighted images impose on articles. User created illustrations are acceptable provided no new idea or argument is presented through them, so a portrait is clearly acceptable under such criteria. There are plenty of editor created illustrations on Wikipedia.

So there are two issues which need to be resolved:

• In your view is such an illustration permissable under Wiki policy, or does it violate OR as the other editor claims?
• If so, in the absence of a freely available photograph, are such portraits an acceptable editorial means of capturing the likeness of a subject. After all, newspapers often publish a court artist's illustrations from UK courts to present a likeness where photograps are not available?

To clear this up I'm prepared to go with a majority decision from three impartial opinions from registered users. Betty Logan (talk) 23:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am responding to a request posted on Wikipedia:Third opinion.

I agree that this portrait is acceptable. Such portraits are permissible under Wikipedia policy, and do not constitute original research. There are plenty of instances where the subject of articles are accompanied by an illustration instead of a photograph. Even traditional publications like The Wall Street Journal have alwasys printed portraits of people instead of photographs. There is ample precedent for this practice, both inside and outside Wikipedia.

In fact, our policy Wikipedia:No original research specifically states (quoting): Wikipedia editors are encouraged to ... draw pictures or diagrams and upload them ... to illustrate articles. Original images created by a Wikipedia editor are not, as a class, considered original research. I think that's a clear and unambiguous statement.

If the illustration above is a good likeness of the subject, there should be no problem with it. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; unless a better photo can be found, the illustration is better than nothing. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's tagged for deletion on commons as a derivative work. If the original image is free to use, we should use it instead. If the original image isn't free to use, then this one isn't either. --Onorem♠Dil 00:14, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops...For clarity, I tagged the image on commons. I just got distracted and was away from the computer for a bit before I had a chance to comment here. --Onorem♠Dil 00:16, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the image is removed then it won't be there to add anyway and the issue comes to a natural conclusion. I will wait and see what the outcome is before considering re-adding it to the article. Opinions in the event of that are still welcome though. Betty Logan (talk) 00:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright issues aside, I don't see any problem with an image like this being used if there's a consensus to use it. I'd consider it like any line of text in a content dispute if editors are disagreeing about whether to include. --Onorem♠Dil 00:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's an obvious copyvio as a derivative work of this. Even a film based on a novel is a derivative work; of course it's not enough to apply a Photoshop filter to get around copyright. Hans Adler 00:50, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the author...the image is a version of this svg file. It's not the same photo with a Photoshop filter, I made myself the svg drawing using obiously a photograph like this as a base. In regard to the inclusion of the photograph in this article I think that is better this than nothing. And this article is not the only one in Wikipedia in which a drawing of a person is used instead of a photograph. --Willtron (?) 16:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't need to be made with a photoshop filter for it to be a copyright violation. Your drawing is clearly a derivative work and it's not yours to release under a free license. --Onorem♠Dil 16:58, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]