Jump to content

Talk:Sandra Bullock/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Intro

Can someone update the info of her being a producer of the George Lopez Show?

I don't see what was wrong with the complete filmography. It's not like it was obscenely long. jaknouse 01:04, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Birth year

Was she born in 1964 or 1965? Searching google turns up both results -- Chris 73 Talk 14:50, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)

Image:Sandy.jpg

The image I uploaded a long time ago (and which has been deleted) was a screencap from Speed. The quality of the recently added photo may be better, but it completely lacks information on its copyright status. Generally, it seems to me the Sandra Bullock article is an example of too many cooks spoiling the broth. <KF> 21:53, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)

Gay Icon Project

In my effort to merge the now-deleted list from the article Gay icon to the Gay icons category, I have added this page to the category. I engaged in this effort as a "human script", adding everyone from the list to the category, bypassing the fact-checking stage. That is what I am relying on you to do. Please check the article Gay icon and make a judgment as to whether this person or group fits the category. By distributing this task from the regular editors of one article to the regular editors of several articles, I believe that the task of fact-checking this information can be expedited. Thank you very much. Philwelch 20:08, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Albanian-Americans?

Someone keeps adding this category, and I'm pretty sure that Bullock being Albanian (presumably from her father's side) is just a persistant web rumour. There's no first-hand source (i.e. interview/profile or anything that had Bullock's personal involvement) that says anything about this (just one or two third-rate sites that copy each other and say she's "half German half Albanian", which is highly unlikely). I think someone saw something about her father being "Alabama-born" and made a mistake between "Alabama" and "Albania", which is probably how this started. JackO'Lantern 15:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, to be half German and half Albanian is not so unlikely since there are a lot of Albanians of Kosovo living in Germany...I don't know if she is Albanian or not but I heard that she said that in an interview, although I don't know how truth is it but I believe this... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.24.249.202 (talk) 14:41, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Argentine Romance..

Also, while in Argentina she was linked to have an affair with football star Rolando Schiavi, famous player of Boca Juniors.

  1. It's wide known in Argentina. If it didn't show up in google doesn't mean it's not true...

It happened a long time ago, there isn't any internet source for it...

Well, if it's "widely known" then there must be some sort of source to confirm it. Some kind of web article or something, or a print source. JackO'Lantern 19:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Fire on the Amazon

Why isn't Fire on the Amazon listed in the filmography table? It's very strange, especially because there is an article on Wikipedia where her name is mentioned in connection with the film: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_on_the_Amazon

Because it's a "selected" filmography and whoever selected the titles to list just didn't put it in there. It is a small film afterall, hardly one that many people would remember her in. If you think it should be in there, be bold and add it. Dismas|(talk) 13:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Partly related to this point - shouldn't the infobox be more selective as to her 'notable roles'? Speed, Miss Congeniality, (although perhaps without their sequels??) and Crash is justified for inclusion in the infobox - but The Net, Practical Magic, and The Lake House? Weren't they all critical and commercial disasters, and largely forgotten now??
Re: the question's response, that it is a selective filmography and the editor didn't think it was noteworthy enough for inclusion?? is that sound policy? Shouldn't the encyclopedia article be exhaustive when discussing things such as filmographies?? I had always assumed that 'selected' filmographies were incomplete because the information was not available--Macca7174 22:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Botox Baby

Her face did not change a single pixel in the last 15 years. S. B. holds the world record for most frequent botox treatments. If she tried to board an airliner, the security gate would label her a bioweapon!

Hello, coward, or should I call you 195.70.32.136. You forgot to sign your name, just as you forgot that this talk page is about discussing changes to the article, not a space for you to hurl insults. If you have proof that she has received regular botox injections - and not original research based on non-scientific visual examination - then maybe we should add it to the page or maybe we shouldn't. In the mean time, go back to writing about stealth jets.Johann Schlinker 22:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Why's that an insult? Botox keeps the hot hottt. Anonymous 57 00:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Awards section

An awards section is needed. Anyone wants to volunteer? Her awards can be found here. [1] Charleenmerced Talk 04:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Charleenmerced

Picture with Article

I hate to say this, but that's a horrible picture of Sandra Bullock with the article. I say this as a fan, too. I think she's actually very attractive, but the posted photo does not do her justice. Can anyone come up with something better? jaknouse 22:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Million-Dollar Baby

After Hilary Swank won the Oscar for Million-Dollar Baby, producer Albert S Ruddy said that Bullock had turned the lead role because she couldn't choose the director. Bullock immediately responded by saying that she had tried to produce an earlier film of the story herself but couldn't get studios interested in a female boxing film. Only when Clint Eastwood came aboard did the film get made. Source: imdb.com. I've removed the comment. --User:Scott197827 —The preceding comment was added on 19:24, 18 February 2006 (UTC).

Section removed

I have removed a talk section about Sandra Bullock that is in violation of WP:biographies of living persons. Please respect the policies for material and commentary about a living person: "Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page." "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space." --EPadmirateur (talk) 15:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Comic Style

Since Bullock is primary involved with comedic films should there be a section about her comedic style? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.201.22.6 (talk) 03:05, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Quote from interview in Vanity Fair cover story, July 2006 issue

The link to the reference to this interview is broken. This quote was first inserted here and the reference and link was added shortly afterward here. It's pretty clear from the history of this entry that Bullock said in the interview, "Now, people say, 'Oh, my God, you're going to have sex with one person the rest of your life.' I hope I have sex with him for the rest of my life, because I like it!" I will remove the link because it's broken and correct the quote. Editors need to stop fiddling with this quote, changing what she said to something else. --EPadmirateur (talk) 16:58, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

9/11 info in personal section

The small 9/11 section that describes Bullock helping people in a hospital is useless. It sounds suspiciously like something a publicist would have added. Not only that, it cites no references. I think it should be removed. Jhinra (talk) 17:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Alright. I've waited a week for some discussion, I think I'm just going to remove it. Feel free to post if you disagree. - Jhinra (talk) 20:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

German?

how much did she make in her movies —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.180.218.143 (talk) 02:28, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

As Sandra lived in Germany when she was a child - does she speak German?

Yes, she does and it is now in the article. JackO'Lantern 05:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Uhm, I've heard her giving interviews in Germany. Let's say she's able to communicate in German. But she is definitely not "fluent". Khero 21:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I was plain wrong this! Up to now I've only heard her being at a loss for words in German and switching back to English. But now I heard her giving a short speech in German. She was near to perfect. It may have been rehearsed but anyway ... She speaks with a slight Franconian accent. What can I say? I'm sorry. I put this into the article again. Khero 01:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

You can find Sandra on YouTube.com giving a speech in German for the Bambi Award. Her German is very good with no accent. She does get two articles (der, die, das) wrong however. She won't be spotted as a non-German. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.103.227.108 (talk) 10:51, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

She definitely does have a Frankonian accent when she speaks, and this might be why she would not do the German dubbing of her movies. The accent simply would not match with the characters she is playing. Perhaps it could be mentioned that she is also German, not only American citizen. 194.95.177.101 10:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Sandra Bullock is fluent in German. She lived there for a large portion of her childhood, and was a member of a childrens german opera choir.

i know, who the fuck knew! ;)24.60.66.216 (talk) 20:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Is it false that she holds a German citizenship since the german law forbids double citizenships. If she was candidate at some point, at 18 she would have to decide between one of the two. Moreover, recent reports show that she's applying for the german citizenship. Darojasp (talk) 22:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

She publicly stated that she does NOT hold German citizenship

http://fr-online.de/in_und_ausland/panorama/?em_cnt=1814892 as from reaching legal adulthood at age 18 on, she had to opt for one of the two citizenships of her parents and obviously decided for the American one. Aside from very few exceptions, German laws do not permit dual citizenship (not favoring the ius soli as Great Britain does but the ius sanguinis principle which is valid in most states of the European Union). So far, at her recent application for German citizenship she has been rejected as uneligible for her unwillingness of giving up her other citizenship. Maybe her relatives in Germany will be helpful though during the revision as her German cousin Susanne is the wife of Peter Ramsauer, a German right wing politician in the state of Bavaria where money and kinship have often made impossible things possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.188.65.246 (talk) 09:51, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Height

I came here to see how tall she is but alas, no physical measurements at all. Alas, what sort of Encyclopedia is this! It's almost like it is just the culmination of its readers' contributions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.70.152.142 (talk) 16:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

IMDB has her at 5' 7½" (1.71 m)[1]. Feel free to add it to the main article. Oh, and it also has her measurements as 33B-24-34 for which IMDB quotes Celebrity Sleuth magazine, but I don't know a primary source for that - 86.155.86.50 (talk) 20:47, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Photos

Can't anyone find any more photos of Ms. Bullock? How about old HS yearbook foto? And that one at Cannes is not very good, doesn't even look that much like her.jaknouse (talk) 02:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to whoever posted the current profile pic, which is much better. You know, this page has been on my watchlist for a LONG time because I made an edit a long time ago, and it reliably shows up EVERY day on my watchlist.jaknouse (talk) 15:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

She just won the Oscar

For best Actress in a leading role, like 50 seconds ago.--201.166.41.5 (talk) 04:51, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

No kidding? No one has noted that. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

And the Razzie

Her winning the Oscar is nowhere near as interesting as the fact that she won two Razzies the day before, so that she is the only performer in history to be simultaneously titled "Best" and "Worst". -- Eliyahu S Talk 19:02, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Failure can be a sign of reaching very high. I'm watching a documentary right now on her that suggest that she tends to do that.

So she's hit some grand slams and some fouls... 69.171.160.168 (talk) 16:56, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

New tag introduced

A tag was intoduced saying the personal section was written in list form and needs to be in prose format. I personally don't see this section in anything other than prose so I reverted and asked the editor to come here to the talk page to discuss. I would appreciate others opinions on this, thanks in advance, --CrohnieGalTalk 17:55, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

That section is just a chronological list of factoids with most of the paragraphs just two sentences long, and as such amounts to semantically being a list which get marked-up with bullets. What the editor who added that tag was suggestingdiff is that the personal life section really should more than a harvesting of citations off the online news. Assuming, of course, that her personal life is our, or anyones, business. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 21:05, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
I think the personal section was originally intended to be written as prose. It comes off as a list of factoids, however, because the various events mentioned in that section are mixed up chronologically and pertain to different aspects of her personal life. I think the personal section should be split into different sub-headings, such as Relationships, Incidents, and Charity Donations; this doesn't totally solve the problem, as it still seems a bit list-like, but that could be solved if someone with good knowledge of Bullock plays around with the wording a bit. I have added in the sub-headings; however, this is just my take as a rather inexperienced editor, so feel free to revert if you disagree. Starswept (talk) 21:23, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
The first bit of the section might be set-off from the rest, which was ordered chronologically and simply listed off snippets of personal information. The structure you've given it certainly structures things more meaningfully. As "prose" it is still pretty far from true quality writing. Gleanings from a celebrity obsessed culture. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 21:58, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Mention of marital troubles

Unless this blows up into an ugly, public divorce or a slander lawsuit, let's keep a lid on adding the infidelity rumors to the articles, shall we? We don't know anything beyond what some desperate, fame-seeking chick is claiming, and until more veritable proof turns up, it's likely that she's making this up for publicity. There are a myriad of reasons why Sandra cancelled her trip to London, and a family emergency doesn't have to be a broken marriage. No one from her camp has confirmed anything regarding this. Considering how uptight Wikipedia editors are about adding rumors regarding a person's private life, even if it's so obvious it doesn't need sources, I'm surprised this slipped through. 24.189.90.68 (talk) 10:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

However there are also rumours that Bullock has left the marital home http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20352494,00.html Manmeets (talk) 14:54, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Keyword: rumors. Like I said in my revert just recently, we are not a gossip rag. Nymf hideliho! 15:08, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
And the addition I just removed contained copy and paste statements from the source used. That's a violation of copyright law. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
I have now added information to the article regarding the public apology James himself has issued to Bullock, via a public statement to People (generally a very reputable source for entertainment news). It appears to me that this substantiates the rumours to some extent and thus warrants inclusion in the article, however I have not included any details of the alleged mistress, etc, since that of course remains rumour. Starswept talk 21:09, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
I have now elaborated on the earlier information I wrote in regarding the marital scandal, as I feel it has become a significantly larger and more public issue since then. To my knowledge, I have not included any unsubstantiated details (i.e. the number and names of the supposed mistresses, James supposedly citing sex addiction as the reason for rehab, the neo-Nazi allegations, etc) and have relied on the statements of Bullock's and James's publicists to People. Starswept (talk) 01:02, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
To me it seems to have undue weight problems. Do we really need to add this much information about her martial problems? It seems too gossipy to me to have all of this in. Other comments? --CrohnieGalTalk 11:32, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I admit I don't have a clue to everything on here, but I don't see why my addition was edited out - Twice! It wasn't gossip, and it's now been confirmed to be a separation between Bullock and James.Kentuckymason —Preceding undated comment added 04:21, 20 March 2010 (UTC).

Bullock and James' kids

Fox News and Gossip using as its source TMZ who is quoting unnamed sources is clearly not a reliable source for content about a living person. Content not only needs to have a source, it needs to have a reliable source with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy, not gossip and scandal. MM 207.69.139.142 (talk) 17:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

And even if it were reliably sourced, in the scope of Bullocks life and career, it seems trivial, WP:UNDUE. MM 207.69.139.142 (talk) 17:56, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Totally unclear about what you are rambling on about, there has been what amounts to vandalism removed from this page, but nothing about what you're posting about. I'm sure those children are more important to Bullock than you want to insinuate. Your changes to the wording don't help and the portion about what he said is directly from the source. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:45, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
This is about "Bullock will have custody of James' children while he completes sex addiction rehab" and if/whether [2] or [3] reflect appropriate sourcing for the statement to appear in the article. MM 207.69.139.159 (talk) 02:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I originally had a source that was actually a report. That is my fault on my behalf, but I changed the source that confirmed that she had custody, yet you still accuse me of using Fox as a source. Read the source first.(Movieguruman (talk) 20:52, 11 April 2010 (UTC))

I am still not certain that you have read and understood: WP:RS
Blogs are only under very very very rare circumstances appropriate to use as a source. Anyone can post anything on the web. MM207.69.139.159 (talk) 02:14, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Convoluted language

NOTE: the original content question asked here has been hijacked to a discussion about editors. MM207.69.139.159 (talk) 02:35, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Is there really a consensus to undo this edit to have such convoluted and redundant language? WHL gave no reason [4] MM 207.69.139.142 (talk) 05:29, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

What we really don't need is an IP jumping anonymous account coming in and trying to pick fights. A scandal did arise, James did decline to further address issues, and your points regarding wording is a style choice, not something anyone is compelled to use. Please don't start following me around and picking your anonymous, IP jumping arguments. The source states specifically "Beyond that, I will not dignify these private matters with any further public comment." [5] The man made it clear nothing beyond the apologies would be addressed. That is sourced and was prior to your removal. I was redundant enough to add the source for that statement in the middle of the section. Please stop removing sourced content. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:42, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Please to keep on topic. New section added for different topic. MM 207.69.139.142 (talk) 15:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
No, dude, YOU keep on topic and stop trying to split responses from their original statements. Stop trying to split out such responses when you were clearly wrong. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:30, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Exactly how does ":What we really don't need is an IP jumping anonymous account coming in and trying to pick fights. A scandal did arise, James did decline to further address issues, and your points regarding wording is a style choice, not something anyone is compelled to use. Please don't start following me around and picking your anonymous, IP jumping arguments. The source states specifically "Beyond that, I will not dignify these private matters with any further public comment." [6] The man made it clear nothing beyond the apologies would be addressed. That is sourced and was prior to your removal. I was redundant enough to add the source for that statement in the middle of the section. Please stop removing sourced content. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:42, 11 April 2010 (UTC)" have ANYTHING to do with "Is there really a consensus to undo this edit to have such convoluted and redundant language? WHL gave no reason [7] MM 207.69.139.142 (talk) 05:29, 11 April 2010 (UTC)" ????? This is yet another incident that makes me clearly wonder about why I should have ANY reson to assume that you are editing in good faith. Assumptions can only go so far in the face of obvious evidence to the contrary. MM207.69.139.142 (talk) 20:18, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, let's start with your having broken my response out and stuck it under a totally unrelated heading, which YOU added after the fact. How would you suggest someone respond to something like that? When you broke my response out, you refactored my response. And let's look at the fact that you posted a message on this page that was designed to be attacking, by addressing the post here to me without notifying me. What? I'm supposed to read your mind? Bad faith editing from the start. Take a look, except for the first sentence, it was absolutely on point. Perhaps you missed it. Read it again. And add in that each time you log in here, you're logging in from a different IP. That's absolutely not an acceptable manner of editing. We have to guess that it is the same person. This has been brought up many times. That you jump IPs each time is deceptive and misleading and I'm sick of having to guess. ANYONE can type in MM after an IP, it doesn't necessarily have to be the same person. And then let's look at how you changed postings that reflect the source and claim that the actual printed words were saying something else. I lost good faith in your IP jumping a long time ago. You're clearly aware that posting from an IP jumping anonymous account is misleading and confusing. We are supposed to guess that it is you. You never did respond to the question of whether you are blocked or banned under a registered account. Wayyyyyyyy tired of this. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:36, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

1) When your response has ABSOLUTELY ZERO to do with my request about language for one sentence? I would move it to a seperate section so that people who want to comment about convoluted language in one sentance can comment about that and people who want to comment about the completely new topic that you brought up could comment about that topic without anyone having to weed though cross conversations that have NOTHING TO DO WITH EACH OTHER and so that is what I did.
2) You have already been told Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts/archive84#User:Wildhartlivie that there is nothing wrong with me editing anonymously from whichever dynamic IP my ISP assigns when I log in as long as I do not make any representation of being other than I am - a single editor. If I were somehow 15 different editors who are all signing our posts "MM" in collusion, we would surely be using our conspriacy to do something other than attempt to confuse you. MM207.69.139.159 (talk) 01:53, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
It is completely unacceptable for you to refactor comments and change section titles after other editors have responded. Desist from refactoring talk page contents while you're busy registering a new account. Once again, you have failed to answer the very specific question "Are you a banned or blocked editor who had a previously registered account?" I take your pointed failure to respond to that question as tacit support that the question is correct. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:49, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
207 is not required to answer to you. If you think they're a puppet WP:SPI is the appropriate place. Gerardw (talk) 21:55, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Exactly. People are allowed to edit anonymously, Wildhartlivie. They always have been on this site. So his IP hops around? He's not trying to hide that fact or pretend to be multiple people. The consistent signing of MM should make that clear. As Gerardw said, if you think MM is a ban/block evading sock, file an SPI case; otherwise drop the issue. LadyofShalott 01:54, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
And when I find the evidence to support it, it will be filed. It's decidedly difficult to prove socking when the IP jumps around and uses no apparent registered names to tie in to it. If it were that easy it would have been filed long ago. That and the IP doesn't even bother to deny is decidedly a huge red flag. Anyone can sign "MM" with an IP and it doesn't mean it is the same person. That's the precise sort of trick that an anonymous editor would pull if he or she was trying to slip in. Meanwhile, I have huge issues with his hijacking my response to any thread by slipping in his own POV heading to preceed my post. Hugely inappropriate and following me to this article to again continue to stir up issues and make unfounded accusations makes me that much more suspicious. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:26, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
I understand that you are suspicious. Nevertheless, unless and until you file the case, you should not keep making accusations on talk pages. LadyofShalott 02:52, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Exactly how is including a post where WHL acknowledges that ISPs assign random IP addresses a direct personal attack? Particularly given the comments that come from WHL without any support behind them at all. MM207.69.137.36 (talk) 06:45, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
There is no personal attack in that diff and it was inappropriate for it to have been removed. Jack Merridew 08:15, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I was told to drop it and that doesn't give either of you free reign to take up the cause. Especially when filing specious and unsupported sock accusations and digging through pages trying to fight back. Learn about how the software here works, it logs registered users out each month. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:32, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Please both of you stop. WHL, that was not a personal attack, and you should not have removed it. However, MM, I had already asked WHL to stop her accusations, and she had said no more on the matter afterwards. There was no need for you to try to antagonize her further. LadyofShalott 13:57, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Convoluted language - 2nd time

Is there really consensus from editors to keep this convoluted language

  • Bullock married on July 16, 2005, when she wed motorcycle builder and Monster Garage host Jesse James.

rather than straighforward English:

WHL reverted to the convoluted version without any explanation [8] and I am wondering if there are other editors who agree. MM 207.69.139.159 (talk) 02:00, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The issue here is that you have carried your battle against me to this page. There is nothing ungrammatical about the first statement. Beyond that, your insistence to change content that specifically reflected the source is both pointy and tendentious. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:46, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
I did not say it was "ungrammatical", I said that it was unnecessarily complex/convoluted. (And if your only reason for reversion is that I made the edit, well that is completely inappropriate. MM207.69.137.26 (talk) 00:05, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
The second wording is simpler and better. LadyofShalott 01:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
It is. Gerardw (talk) 10:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Your contention that I reverted because it was you is holistically inflammatory and your suggestion that I did so because it is you is simply reflective of your bad faith attitude toward anything I say, IP. There is nothing wrong with the sentence, it states what happened. That change was one in a series of questionable changes you inserted, including one where you insisted that your own wording was preferable to what the actual source said. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:18, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
The topic of this section is the wording of the two sentences above. If you wish to discuss something else, please feel free to take it to an appropriate / new section. MM207.69.139.159 (talk) 00:42, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me all to hell, but you are the one who dragged other issues into here "(And if your only reason for reversion is that I made the edit, well that is completely inappropriate)". Please, for all that is holy, STOP being so contentious. I merely responded to your assertion that I reverted because it is you. You can't have your cake and eat it too. If you make unfounded assertions, expect a response. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:34, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok I think this has gone on long enough, please lets just stop now. Thank you, --CrohnieGalTalk 16:40, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Her religion?

What Religion Does She Practice ??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.142.51.35 (talk) 09:35, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I would say some form of Catholicism or Christianity. She's mentioned God in an interview before. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.247.244.120 (talk) 02:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
In a 1995 interview, she states "I have all this Catholic guilt, and I'm not even Catholic". So, you can scratch that one out. All Hallow's (talk) 06:59, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
She is a Christian. [9] --ΙΧΘΥΣ (talk) 01:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
No, she's not a Christian. Read the article carefully. Bullock initially turned down the role three times because she was "intimidated" by fundamental Christianity. After doing the movie, she said her faith in Christians was restored - not her faith in Christianity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.143.59.94 (talk) 10:39, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
I always grew up hearing that she was either Jewish or part Jewish.--96.226.114.14 (talk) 04:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Well, growing up "hearing stuff" is hardly a reliable source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Newzild (talk • contribs) 00:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Quote: "... she told very few people about the adoption, only inviting her inner most circle to Louis’ bris. She even managed to convey to her stepchildren how important it was for them not to let the secret slip. " - What does "bris" mean? If I can beliefe Wikipedia, bris means Brit milah, so? --217.232.125.228 (talk) 14:20, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Is in text attribution of "scandal" necessary per WP:WTA / WP:BLP?

I have asked for feedback from Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#.22Attribution.22 about this edit [10] MM 207.69.137.26 (talk) 00:00, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

And I'd suggest that since the sentence is sourced to a valid reference, the use of the word is supported by the reference. Why should we give prose credit to a magazine when the precise source follows the statement. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:19, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Just as simple as WP:NOR TbhotchTalk C. 02:21, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
From the NPOV noticeboard linked above:
Please read WP:BLP. IMO, the use of the word should especially be attributed in-text in a biography of a living person. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:41, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm not even sure the word "scandal" should be used. Read this. I read the article, and it seems to me that reportage of petty incidents such as Vehicular accidents is unsuitable for Wikipedia because of this policy. Not that I'm picking on this article; I know very well that if all the information in violation of Wikipedia's guidelines and policies were deleted, it could probably get by on half the servers it now has. Tom Reedy (talk) 23:49, 12 April 2010 (UTC)"
suggesting that as this is a BLP we be particularly careful about the use of "scandal" MM207.69.137.38 (talk) 17:44, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Endorsement deal

I reworded some stuff to NOT sound spammy or promotional or whatever. My friend's mother raves about the stuff after trying it and mentioned Sandra Bullock which is what prompted me to check the article and seeing that it was NOT mentioned, thought it was very valid part of her career. I sourced it, there are many other sources for it on google too. Is the quote, which is on the source as well, the issue? It's word for word. You didn't specify, but undoing the entire article is not necessary. I used registered trademarks for brands even, and I'm new on here, so still learning, but check it now and see if the rewording is better. I didn't use the wording from the beauty site that I found now. I think a major endorsement deal is more interesting than a minor car wreck. Cobyjak 01 (talk) 05:59, 26 June 2010 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Cobyjak 01 (talk • contribs) 05:53, 26 June 2010 (UTC) This page is what prompted me to fix all the mess on the Artistry wikipedia link, since it was so poorly done. I'm new to wikipedia, but I thought I was doing good investigative work but it has been undone on both pages by the same user. I found it interesting that Sandra Bullock has never endorsed a product until now considering how old she is and the span of her career. Am I missing something? Cobyjak 01 (talk) 06:28, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

It surely isn't because it's an ENDORSEMENT DEAL she signed. Look up LeBron James and tell me what you see under endorsements. It's part of their career. Must be another problem? Help me see the error of my ways, lol. Cobyjak 01 (talk) 06:31, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
In fact, it was given far too much undue weight in the realm of her career. Is it notable? Maybe, maybe not, but giving it over 1000 bytes of copy for a very small endorsement is undue. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:31, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I don't know how you know how big the endorsement deal is. I haven't found it anywhere. But please share it with the class. Just because it's been an overseas endorsement hardly makes it small. Apparently a large part of Artistry's sales ARE overseas. I just read it was a three year endorsement deal signed with Artistry and that she hasn't done endorsements before. I can just remove the quote part, that keeps it pretty simplified. Everyone agreed? Or more on fender benders?Cobyjak 01 (talk) 23:40, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, since there was no response, I'm assuming we're agreed. There's the basic info on the deal with no quotes.Cobyjak 01 (talk) 21:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Crème LX (Artistry®)

There have been repeated deletions of my work on Sandra Bullock by user Hullaballoo Wolfowitz with little explanation and NO contribution to the talk page whatsoever. This was my last revision after removing the quote from Sandra Bullock:

- In 2007 Sandra Bullock started her first product endorsement to date, for a three-year deal, with American cosmetic company, Artistry®. She currently endorses their anti-aging cream, Crème LX, or Crème LuXury(U.S. name), although the product was not available in the U.S. until 2010. [2][3]

All the explanations for the deletions keep calling this spam. Does anyone else think this addition is spam? I don't work for Artistry company or whatever, so there's no COI. What in this is spam? Or am I right in assuming that this user is abusing their rights in editing. There is a large section under the user's profile with similar abuses titled "system gaming".Cobyjak 01 (talk) 00:26, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi, please see assuming good faith. You are a new editor so you need to learn more about policies here and boy are there a lot. Please see the last reversion done to your edits which also gives you policies to read like coatrack and spam. [11] The editor you talk about, Hullaballo Wolfowitz, is a long term editor here and maybe you should listen to what he says since he has a lot of experience at this site. Also this same thing was responded to by Wildhartlivie who gave you some advice also. Please remember that there are no deadlines here so allow time for editors to respond to questions you have. I suspect no response was given until now because responses have been given to you in the edit summaries. It takes time to learn the correct way to edit articles so don't get frustrated about being reverted. I've been here myself since 2007 and I'm still learning. Be patient and polite, then I would suggest putting on this talk page your suggestions for what you want to add with this subject and wait for a response. There are enough editors who have this page on their watchlist that someone should come along in time to answer what you have to say. Happy editing, --CrohnieGalTalk 12:48, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Maybe Hullaballo Wolfowitz should "assume good faith" and stop saying I'm spamming the article. I don't work for Artistry. I DID read the suggestions by the previous user, who ACTUALLY contributed to the talk page. Hallaballo Wofowitz COULD actually suggest an alternate version of the information, but he never does. And I don't care how many Wiki merit badges he has, he's not contributing to articles for the most part, just deleting, which coincidentally takes much less work. I read all the policies you stated and I appreciate the information. The article addition I was making is completely neutral, and the coatracking only has to do with one of the websites I sourced apparently being one you can buy products on too. I will remove that source then, and there's no problem.Cobyjak 01 (talk) 22:15, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Okay, once again people calling the one sentence statement about her having a 3 year deal with Artistry SPAM. Don't know how it is, but so far NO ONE has tried to give an alternate version or say specifically what is wrong with it. Is it because the sites I've sourced had the interview/commercial available to view? If so, then I will just remove any of them that do. I found an offical company source that doesn't have the commerical video on it. This should work.Cobyjak 01 (talk) 23:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, so, this is from a press release from Artistry's parent company, Alticor. I apologize to everyone for using the commerical video as my original sourcing, but I didn't have anything else at the time. I'll know better next time. It would be very helpful though if people would actually SAY what is wrong with an article, especially by contributing to the discussion page. So, I apologize to Hullaballo Wolfowitz. Have a good day guys and gals.Cobyjak 01 (talk) 00:16, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, so the ONLY official source I could find about the deal comes from Alticor. I didn't realize that wasn't an acceptable source. I would think that there would be legal ramifications if an official company press release stated that they had signed a celebrity endorsement when they hadn't. I believe the White House makes press release statements I am inclined to believe but I guess that doesn't make them true. Sandra Bullock obviously appears in Artistry commercials, on their billboards, etc. but we need to verify the obvious on here, I get it. Anyone else know any other sources for Bullock's deal? I read it was a three-year deal for an undisclosed amount.Cobyjak 01 (talk) 18:31, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

First name

Sandra not is a german name; the mother is german, because the father not is german; she have amerindian feactures in the face..(the father is a mestizo or mameluco..?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.114.192.182 (talk) 03:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Many German girls/women are named Sandra which derives (to my knowledge) from Alexandra! So you neither Sandra nor Alexandra are German? Well they might not be of German origin (like many other names) but what does this mean? Do you mean girls or women named Sandra can't be German? What about the girls/women in Britain and the USA then since this name is (like Alexander) clearly Greek? Your statement makes no sense at all! 92.223.57.74 (talk) 08:00, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

More footnotes tag

The section on acting contains a large number of uncited statements that need to be footnoted. There are more than can be reasonably tagged individually without cluttering the section needlessly. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:53, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

The tag says: "This section includes a list of references, but its sources remain unclear because it has insufficient inline citations." I don't see a list of references in the section. Gimmetoo (talk) 10:57, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
That is the template text. Lists of references always appear at the end of the article, and apply to every section of an article.
We both want the article to be the best-referenced it can be. I'm sure we both agree that unreferenced claims should be referenced.--Tenebrae (talk) 20:57, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Fürth?

Why she has the category "People from Fürth"? Nuremberg would be more logical since Fürth is not even mentioned in the article. Though she is not from there either, she only has half-german descent. 85.217.38.114 (talk) 14:23, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Where's The Sister?

Sandra Bullock has a sister who's both a writer and a successful pastry chef. Surely the sister should be mentioned in Bullock's personal information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Younggoldchip (talk • contribs) 20:28, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Razzie Award for Worst Picture

this needs to be listed in All About Steve. the Worst Picture Razzie goes out to the producer(s) of the film and Bullock was one of the producers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.167.192.201 (talk) 03:30, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Degree?

Sandra apparently graduated from university. What was her degree? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 (talk) 04:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

i am sure that sandra appears in the house party scene in Shwarzenegers "Raw Deal"(1986)as the young girl posing for a camera in a pink dress-its between the 46th and 48th minutes enjoy ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.179.197.69 (talk) 22:06, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Awar

MTV Generation Award is listed under her awards for 'The Blind Side'. It obviously shouldn't be, because it wasnt't for the movie... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.28.74.156 (talk) 18:42, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

This is extremely important

In the filmography of Sandra missing role of Rose (maid) in the TV series "Columbo" (season 9, episode 55, "Murder in Malibu" 1990). Thanks! neo (talk) 02:06, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Do you have a source? It needs to be verified. --Musdan77 (talk) 01:54, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

may i suggest to remove the link #52 as it leads to nowhere? also, i trust that this article might have a few more 'dead' links.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.63.2.100 (talk) 02:03, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

First, I would recommend always using the edit summary. Then there will be less guessing as to what your intentions are (way too many malicious edits going on all the time on WP). Second, the title of the broken references are included in the ref templates. It's great that someone included all the details as opposed to a bare link. It's possible the same news story exists on a different website. Let someone come alone and find those stories and restore a good url. Removing them altogether would remove that possibility. Thanks for posting. Dawnseeker2000 02:10, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
i am not familiar with the 'edit summary' as i have not come across this before but am happy to use it next time. i am also seeing that the link #53 has been restored. i tried to to this to #52 but to no avail. sorry... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.63.2.100 (talk) 22:05, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Link 33 DOES NOT support the statement that Ms. Bullock originally turned down the role in The Blind Side because she was uncomfortable playing a devout Christian. The referenced article very clearly states tha Ms. Bullock was unconfortable with the way SOME claim to be devout and then act differently. It also states that she took the role once she got to know Leigh Anne Tuohy and her family, after which Ms. Bullock stated she had met people who "walk the walk". Then again, I don't expect articles in Wikipedia to actually try to be accurate when there's an opportunity to misrepresent information and promote the political agenda so prevelant on these pages.CharmsDad (talk) 07:19, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Big star

First of all, I am sorry for my bad english - I am not native. I am writing articles about Hollywood stars on Serbian wikipedia. I noticed that in articles about golden age stars there is always a word about how big they were (Bette Davis, Monroe, Hepburn(s), Brando, later Taylor, Fonda, Meryl Streep...) But today somehow we do not write about huge popularity of Julia Roberts or Tom Cruise, or about iconic name of Angelina, or about incredible success and rose to fame of Sandra Bullock. I mean, if you only type the biggest star, box office hit, America's most popular actresses etc there must be Sandra mentioned somewhere. She is making hits all the time, she has the biggest power on box office, she is considered to be one the most beloved stars of American cinema (if not the most beloved), she is global movie star, who is now what Julia and Meg were twenty years ago. But that is not mentioned. Today I found a poll Who is the biggest movie star on the planet and that made me think. People were writing Jen. Lawrence, N. Portman, Kate Winslet... Of course, we have different taste, but, God, no! No Lawrence. She appeared yesterday. No Winslet! I mean, great talent, but no. Not even Angelina (if she would focus more on movies, not on politics), not Julia - she is almost washed-up star. I think we should make it clear somehow, like we did in articles about those old stars. If you read them one by one, you will have an exact picture of the stars moving eachother from the throne: Garbo - Davis - Hepburn - Monroe - Taylor - Fonda - Streep - Ryan - Roberts - (Jolie - Bullock...) But not today. I know this is not the time of divas, but still - there are always the biggest ones, and the rest. Again, sorry for my english. --86.88.247.32 (talk) 11:45, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Bullock & Ramsauer

Why did this, sourced sentence, get removed: "Bullock is a close relative of Peter Ramsauer, Germany's current Federal Minister of Transport, Building and Urban Development." → [12] Bullock frequently visits her family in Germany and calls Ramsauer "good old uncle Peter",[13] ...and, for example, goes for dinner with him.[14] I find it quite notable when a famous Hollywood actress is akin to the head of a cabinet-level ministry of the Federal Republic of Germany, i.e. a member of the Second Merkel cabinet - the government of a great power that has the world's fourth-largest economy. Please explain why this information is not notable, and please do refer to the according WP policies that are in support of removing this WP:RS content. --User:IIIraute (talk) 05:13, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

@IIIraute: This article is about the film star and her work.
To have a second cousin by marriage is NOT notable, whoever that cousin is, or to whomever that cousin is married.
Another editor has reverted your editing since you re-instated after my reverting your adding it back.
Do not accuse me of "edit-warring"! It is clear under WP:BRD that it is you who made the bold revision and that I restored the article.
I hope that is clear to you.
Regards, — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 10:18, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Please refer to the relevant WP policy that is in support of your removal of WP:RS content; i.e. that "a second cousin by marriage is NOT notable, whoever that cousin is". The mothers of Bullock and Susanne Ramsauer are sisters. For Bullock, Peter Ramsauer is (in her own words) "good old uncle Peter".
To remove (three times) WP:RS content, just because you do not agree with it, is edit-warring. A good example of WP:IDONTLIKEIT → "Such claims require an explanation of which policy the content fails and explanation of why that policy applies as the rationale for deletion."
Per WP:SOURCE, the newspapers I have cited (Die Welt, Süddeutsche Zeitung) are reliable sources.
Per WP:RSUE "Citations to non-English sources are allowed."
Per WP:SET "double-quotes check", there are ca. 21,000 results for ""Sandra Bullock" and "Peter Ramsauer"", meaning, notability is established.
English language WP:RS → The Telegraph (Calcutta) → [15]
Please refrain from making such unconstructive edits, thank you. --IIIraute (talk) 16:19, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Fake admin claims ([16] & [17]) about Hullaballoo Wolfowitz‎‎, to justify the reverts of WP:RS content - nice one! He is not an admin → [18]. And even if he was - there are WP policies to follow!
The two of you do not own this article → WP:OWN - whether you are a tag team, or not! --IIIraute (talk) 21:26, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
I hope, this → [19] is not intended to canvass an uninvolved editor into this matter! Is there some kind of mutual agreement between the two of you: "When I see your name on the history, I know that is one mess that I shall not need to clean up!" [20] & "Oh! I had not noticed that. Thanks for the heads-up! I wonder why he's approached Mark Arsten? He has attracted no favourable response, whereas Hullaballoo Wolfowitz‎‎ has reverted him once, so I do have support."[21] - just asking?? --IIIraute (talk) 00:04, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
I would suggest following the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, which means retaining the status before the bold edit was made and reverted until a consensus is reached on the talk page. I believe the relevant policies / guidelines are WP:Consensus, Wikipedia:Be bold, and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, which states, inter alia: "In any encyclopedia, information cannot be included solely because it is true or useful." So verifiability is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for inclusion. Could we have some grounds for the editorial judgement that this information should be included in an encyclopaedia? --Boson (talk) 00:29, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
I already have explained myself, so please see above⬆⬆, as well as WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC. It is not only verifiability, but also "notability" that has been established! Per WP:SET "double-quotes check", there are ca. 21,000 results for ""Sandra Bullock" and "Peter Ramsauer"", meaning that their exact names appear together in the same source.
I also would also like to see the "admin claims" and the possibility of "tag teaming" solved. --IIIraute (talk) 00:43, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Notability is about establishing that a topic merits its own article, not about the content of an article. The essay Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, to which you referred, is only tangentially relevant to this discussion. Please read the introduction to that essay. The essay advises against using the argument "not encyclopedic" as an argument for deletion of an artice. In this case, as I see it, it is you who wish to add something to the article and there is no pre-existing consensus, so, as I understand policy, the burden is currently on you to establish that the information merits inclusion.
Perhaps an RfC would be helpful in establishing a wider consensus. --Boson (talk) 01:37, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
The principle remains the same. The inclusion of one rather short sentence cannot differ that much from establishing that a topic merits its own article.
Why conceal this information - that really does interest me. Obviously there is enough public interest, otherwise why are there literally hundreds of WP:RS, including major newspapers, regularly reporting about this connection? Isn't that enough proof that the information merits inclusion?! Bullock has a close relationship to her family in Germany, regularly visits them - she even mentioned them in her Oscar speech. "Good old uncle Peter" is the current Federal Minister of Transport, Building and Urban Development, i.e head of a cabinet-level ministry of the German government - representing a great power that has the world's fourth-largest economy. --IIIraute (talk) 02:03, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
I don't see why this fact can't be included in the article. It's notable enough information and one sentence or so about it wouldn't be out of place. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 06:22, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Bullock is not a "close" relative of Ramsauer; by most usages, she's not related to him at all. Ramsauer is married to a cousin of Bullock's (the degree isn't clear to me; the original reference apparently identified Bullock's mother and Ramsauer's wife (or her mother) as cousins, though that may be a lousy Google translation.[22]) The claim that Bullock mentioned Ramsauer in her Oscar speech is evidently false.[23] Exaggerated claims from celebrity journalism don't belong in an encyclopedia. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:26, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
You are twisting my words!! I said "Bullock has a close relationship to her family in Germany, regularly visits them - she even mentioned them in her Oscar speech." Although not in the speech per se, she did it shortly after in the Acadamy Awards 2010 press room interview. Bullock says (in German): "...to my family in Germany I would like to say: "I love you, I miss you, I will see you very soon! Good night - go to bed, and sleep tight!""[24] She also did, for example, mention them in her 2010 Golden Globes Awards speech, even before she mentions her American family → 02.55 min. [25], and continues her speech (in German) "...you can go to bed now, but do not forget to brush your teeth!", or in her 2000 Bambi Awards speech (that she held in perfect German), where she mentions her German family name by name → [26] In the speech she greets the four Ramsauer kids "Barbara, Carolin, Christin und Gabriela", tells "Maxi" to go to bed now, and continues with greeting her aunt "Christl" (her mother's sister) and her uncle "Heinz". Bullock even speaks with a Bavarian (Franconian) accent.
The mothers of Sandra Bullock and Susanne Ramsauer are full sisters (share the same biological parents), as Federal Minister Ramsauer states in this interview → [27] Meaning: they are real cousins - first cousins - first degree cousins.
Peter and Susanne Ramsauer are married for almost 30 years. Bullock and Ramsauer were family, a long time before either of them got famous. I guess that's why she calls him "good old uncle Peter"[28] They are family - Susanne Ramsauer is her first cousin - Peter Ramsauer is her first degree cousin-in-law (for the last 30 years). Ergo: they are "close relatives".
According to Associated Press, published in the Rhein-Zeitung, 11. July 2002: "Bullock's mother and the mother of Susi Ramsauer are sisters, who grew up together in the postwar period - in Nuremberg. The one married an American GI and gave birth to Sandra; the other moved with her husband to the south of Bavaria. As a child, the actress spent much of her time at "aunt Christl", when Bullock's mother had to appear as a singer at the Salzburg theater."
According to (AC), "the close "family-bond",and intimate relationship with her family remained existent when the Bullocks moved to the USA and Sandra became a global super star. Secretly, and on a regular base, the actress visits her relatives in Bavaria. "It is like time remained still", said Christian Socialist Union-politician Ramsauer. "Sandra has not generally changed. For my wife Susi and Sandra, it's the same as it ever was.""
As a side note:
Bullock lived for the first 12 years of her life, i.e. spent her childhood, in Germany → [29]
For her first three years in school she visited the humanistic Waldorf School in Nuremberg, where according to Bullock, she spent "her most beautiful school years".[30]
"“Half of my family is German,” said Bullock, who was raised in Nuremberg for 12 years and grew up speaking German." [31]
For the first eighteen years of her life, Bullock also had German citizenship. → Interview with Bullock, Frankfurter Rundschau → [32] (According to German law she was not allowed to retain dual-citizenship after the age of 18) In the interview, Bullock continues, saying that "getting a German passport again, would be "to pay homage" to her roots - a "sign of esteem" to her German heritage, and that she just opened a bakery in Austin, Texas, to have a "point of contact" to her European mentality, baking, Croissants, Windbeutel and Zwetschgendatschi."
Bullock has recently applied to regain her German citizenship: "“It would be wonderful if my sister and I could succeed. It is something my mother wished for her children.”" → [33]
Basically nothing of this is mentioned in the article!!! --IIIraute (talk) 01:04, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Citizenship

Is it true that "Until the age of eighteen, Bullock held American/German dual citizenship." I thought American law did not recognize dual citizenship?125.237.105.102 (talk) 07:34, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

FYI, United_States_nationality_law#Dual_citizenship says "Based on the U.S. Department of State regulation on dual citizenship (7 FAM 1162), the Supreme Court of the United States has stated that dual citizenship is a "status long recognized in the law" and that "a person may have and exercise rights of nationality in two countries and be subject to the responsibilities of both." -- AstroU (talk) 19:18, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Congratulate her on 'Most Beautiful' selection

She is gracious about the new commendation 'award' and recognition. 

Headline: Sandra Bullock Is PEOPLE's 2015 World's Most Beautiful Woman!

QUOTE: "She may be PEOPLE's 2015 World's Most Beautiful Woman, but Sandra Bullock doesn't take herself too seriously when it comes to her appearance.

Despite being in "princess mode" while shooting for this year's cover story, Bullock, 50, insists she just laughed when she heard about the honor. "No, really. I just said, 'That's ridiculous,' " she tells PEOPLE. "I've told no one." " -- AstroU (talk) 19:24, 22 April 2015 (UTC) -- PS: Already in the Article herein, TNKS .!.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Sandra Bullock. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:23, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

University degree

Okay here's the deal. Some sources say she did get her degree, some sources say she left before finishing.

Example "finished":

http://www.ace show biz.com/celebrity/sandra_bullock/biography.html

(Actually, this source is on the Wiki blacklist. But I don't have time to find another, so I'm just inserting those spaces to be able to save my comment CapnZapp (talk) 13:49, 19 November 2015 (UTC))

Examples "did not finish":

http://www.biography.com/people/sandra-bullock-9542453#early-life
http://www.boomsbeat.com/articles/1432/20140319/50-things-you-didnt-know-about-sandra-bullock.htm

Note how all these sources agree on the specifics, that she left just three credits short. This in itself could mean nothing, since copy-paste-journalism isn't new. But there is no deviance on why she did not finish, if she did not finish.

Okay, so what do the horse's mouth say then?

First, we have

http://www.ecu.edu/cs-cfac/theatredance/alumni/Sandra-Bullock.cfm
http://www.ecu.edu/cs-cfac/theatredance/WalkOfFame.cfm

But notice that neither of these pages actually tell us she got her degree, only that she "attended" and "recieved her training". If I were to write a plug about a student not actually finished, this is exactly the kind of language I'd use.

Finally, the source currently used on the page:

https://digital.lib.ecu.edu/22514

But the problem is that this booklet could have been printed well in advancement of the commencement. The fact Sandar's name is in there only confirms she was about to get her bachelor's degree, not that she actually got it. And moreover, this pamphlet is not contradicting the claims that she did not finish, since she did not finish only three credits short, suggesting she left AFTER this pamphlet went to the printer's.

This leads to the following status:

None of the sources actually confirm her degree. Several secondary sources discuss her degree but can't decide whether she got it or left just shy of getting it.

Therefore I suggest we hold off claiming Sandra Bullock has a Bachelor's degree from the ECU until more definitive sources can be found than my random googling. Acting on this now. CapnZapp (talk) 13:49, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Note that to arrive at this conclusion you had to engage in unsupported speculation ("could have been", "suggesting") about why our source (a publication by the university which would have awarded the degree) might not be reliable. Two of the sources you cite are highly questionable, and biography.com has been known to pick up unconfirmed information from the Web and report it as fact. The claim that someone did not obtain a degree program from the university where they studied (when they have not been verifiably quoted clearly stating this themselves) is potentially defamatory. When reliable sources exist concerning the biography of a living person which contradict each other, we must always give precedence to those that do not defame the subject. Until you find the definitive, reliable source that contradicts and discredits our reliable source without engaging in speculation, the page will stay as it is. General Ization Talk 14:15, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
First off, what goes on the page is what our consensus say. So tone down your demands on what I need to do or not do. Thanks.
What I'm saying is that our "reliable source" to the best of my knowledge is like an invite, not a reciept of attendance (and anyway it's a party pamphlet not a educational registry). When the specific ECU pages on Bullock then avoids stating her degree, it rings an alarm bell. If she has the degree, shouldn't it be trivial to source this?
Are you sure you're not putting the burden of evidence the wrong way, Ization? I'm not supposed to prove she didn't do (or get) something. We're supposed to source what we claim she did or got. In fact, finding a source saying she quit could be impossible, even if she did quit. Instead I suggest we do not make any claims until we can verify them.
Suggesting she quit three credits short could indeed be defamatory, so lets lift out the entire paragraph talking about her degree (to here on talk) until such time we can verify her educational registry and agree on what to write. Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 00:00, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Sandra Bullock. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:59, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Changed 1st link to http://womeninfilm.org/the-crystal-lucy-awards/

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Sandra Bullock. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:53, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Sandra Bullock. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:37, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Article issues.

I quickly read over the article and found some obvious issues:
The timeline in the Legal issues section is out of sequence. The years bounce from 2004, to 2007, then back to 2002, which states "Beginning in 2002, Bullock was also stalked..." which was apparently the first stalking. The entire last sentence, "After the restraining order expired and Weldon was released from a mental institution, he again traveled across several states to find Bullock; she then obtained another restraining order.", leaves a reader hanging and lost. Sometimes after 2006, but unknown, and any ending is just dropped over a ledge and forgotten. The source states "Weldon was committed indefinitely to a state mental hospital in Wyoming on Tuesday.", which is closure.
The External links section is too long especially since Life, Glamour, and Vogue magazine would qualify as reliable sources to support article content inclusion. I haven't looked at all the bot activity but the majority of content on this talk page is filled with bot external link modifications. Otr500 (talk) 22:53, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Murder by Numbers

Perhaps I missed it, but in 2002 Sandra Bullock made a movie call Murder by Numbers. She played a detective and eventually discovered that two college students were playing a deadly game. It was an "edge of your seat" movie and should be included in her list of accomplishments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8804:1F01:C500:7C63:829A:8AA8:4E86 (talk) 22:34, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 September 2018

SiaBonita (talk) 23:48, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Sandra is 54 years old now in 2018.

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. That's what the article says. What error do you see? RudolfRed (talk) 01:29, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Bryan Randall

why is there no mention anywhere in article (list as partner?) of partner Bryan Randall of 3 years who lives with her and children as a family? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.231.27.254 (talk) 06:41, 18 December 2018 (UTC) Added note: Troy Aikman, and actors Matthew McConaughey and Ryan Gosling are mentioned, so why not Randall? Thank you for adding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.231.27.254 (talk) 06:48, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 June 2019

Please change "In the crime drama A Time to Kill (1996), Bullock portrayed a member of the defense team, in the trial for murder of a young girl, opposite Samuel L. Jackson, Matthew McConaughey and Kevin Spacey" to "In the crime drama A Time to Kill (1996), Bullock portrayed a member of the defense team, in the trial for murder of two men who raped a young girl, opposite Samuel L. Jackson, Matthew McConaughey and Kevin Spacey" because the film is not about a trial for murder of a young girl, but rather the trial for murder of two men who raped the killer's young daughter. Jbywater21 (talk) 04:19, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done Sam Sailor 05:10, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Double citizenship

Now: American actress. Better: German-American actress.--2A01:C23:6068:A100:5D3F:FD39:B3D2:6499 (talk) 17:24, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

The whole paragraph:

"After Corbett missed a court date the previous month, police officers went to his parents' residence on May 2, 2018, where he lived in a guest house, to arrest him. He refused to leave and threatened to shoot officers. A SWAT team was called and, after a five-hour standoff, they deployed gas canisters and entered the house where they found Corbett had committed suicide. Corbett's death was the result of "multiple incised wounds" according to the Los Angeles County coroner.[157]"

Should be removed - it becomes less about Bullock and more about this guy. It should just stop after he was sentenced to stay away from her. If anything, the comment about his death should be brief and not so detailed.

"After missing a court date, police found that he had committed suicide after a standoff with the police."

This isnt his wiki page LADY LOTUS • TALK 17:37, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the suggested changes. I think it's helpful to the reader to include that he later committed suicide (i.e., is no longer a threat to Bullock) but not much else. Schazjmd (talk) 18:08, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 June 2020

Add then-boyfriend musician Bob Schneider to airplane crash under Accidents section. [4] Matthewsmith99 (talk) 20:05, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: I'd prefer to have more substantial sources linking that specific person to her before putting that wikilink in this article. That's an awfully common name for me to be comfortable just using a passing mention in a short news article. And if we can't bluelink the name, I don't see the mention as particularly noteworthy. Show something substantial enough to add him to her relationships, then we can go from there. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 21:35, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Robert Borden". imdb. Retrieved October 24, 2009.
  2. ^ http://www.celebritywonder.com/vids/Sandra_Bullock/_QDzW4PEgAo.html
  3. ^ http://360beauty.multiply.com/video/item/4/Sandra_Bullock_loves_Artistry_Creme_LX_
  4. ^ https://www.theguardian.com/film/2000/dec/21/news1

Her name in the movie Speed is Annie, not Anne

The article is locked and can't be edited Ronnyp7469 (talk) 08:05, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Ronnyp7469, you're right, I've fixed it. Schazjmd (talk) 14:34, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 January 2020

She was born in Arlington Texas, Not VA, or DC I know her the birthplace of VA. is incorrect and false 2605:6000:120A:5D7:0:8FA6:1A9E:85EB (talk) 05:53, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. "I know" is not something we can verify. Meters (talk) 06:07, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
She was born in Arlington County, VA, where she attended Washington-Lee High School. Here's the Class of 1982.--2003:CF:3F1C:D8B9:A5FD:6F08:4EA7:FD3A (talk) 15:15, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Comma Sprinkler Editor

The editor/writer of this entry is very inconsistent with punctuation--example: In November 2006, Bullock founded an Austin, Texas, restaurant named Bess Bistro which was located on West 6th Street.

There is no need for a comma "before" the word restaurant; furthermore, there are several places within this article where commas are needed and "not" used. Why is this article locked from editing when these errors exist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:30D5:E730:D69A:20FF:FE62:C0BC (talk) 20:14, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Bullock Was Born in Washington, D.C.

Bullock was, in fact, born at George Washington Hospital in DC. It's true she grew up in Arlington, VA.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:218D:3C00:B199:8F3F:E97A:E892 (talk) 02:46, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sandra_Bullock/Archive_1&oldid=1167064735"