Jump to content

Talk:Craig Ferguson/Archive 1

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

"Liberal Bias"

Who has criticized Ferguson for his (rather tame, in my opinion) digs at Fox news? Also, as far as I can tell, all this shows is that he may be a liberal (which he freely admits, anyway- there was a NY Times Magazine interview with him in which he said so). To be biased one needs to purport to be objective. By saying, "I'm making stuff up, just like Fox news!" Ferguson is explicitly denying his intent to be objective. This seems like a lame attempt to sneek in a link to the Bias article. I will remove the whole paragraph if no one chimes in. Nigel Napalm 22:55, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Use of first name

I removed all of the references to his first name only. Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies), this is discouraged because "The use of the first name gives the impression that the writer knows the subject personally, which, even if true, is not relevant.". Also, in my opinion, it makes the article read like a People Magazine fluf-piece. --rogerd 21:26, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


Controversy

other than the toronto bit, not of the so called controvery comes across as controversal at all, was there something more to the starbucks story that is written here? as complaining that a starbucks doesnt have a toilet seems a perfectly resonable thing to do. as for the Fox News/Bob Barker bits, you know i do believe thaere is a difference between controversy and satire especially when there has been no reaction to so called "controversal comments". Kejoxen 09:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Everything in the controversy section was said as a joke on the show. I want to delete the entire section, which is inappropriately labeled. - GilliamJF 05:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the "Controversy" section includes no actual controversy, just examples of humor. While no one individual is likely to find every joke or bit on a particular show to be amusing, there is nothing in this section as currently written that would qualify as any more controversial than the typical fare seen nightly on most American nighttime talk shows. Unless someone can demonstrate that this section is accurately presented and relevant to the article, I think that it should be eliminated soon. --DannyZ 06:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


I deleted it. There was no controversy. --172.194.140.119 03:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikify.

Contrary to the most recent editor, this article DOES need to be wikified. It lacks any sense of organization whatsoever. It's just a mess of information right now. It says that he's best known for his work on _The Drew Carey SHow_, which I can only assume is from a version of the article from before he got _The Late Late Show_. I'm re adding the tag. Please don't remove it until the article is organized into discreet and discernable sections. Croctotheface 11:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to add the cleanup tag to split the difference. Croctotheface
I added some section headers and did some reorganization of the text (I didn't delete anything). It still needs a lot of work to be considered wikified, but at least the info is grouped now so it's easier to understand and edit. Also, it might be better to move some of the Late Late Show-specific things to the Late Late Show (CBS) page. Bluefrue 06:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I removed the tag as there is now a form of organization. I agree that the quality of the writing could and should be higher. Croctotheface 10:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

"Craig Ferguson", or "TV's Craig Ferguson"?

I'd say it would be incorrect to begin the article by including "TV's" within the bolding of the title name at it's first appearance, thus:

TV's Craig Ferguson is the host of the Late Late Show...

One the other hand, if it says

TV's Craig Ferguson is the host of the Late Late Show...

with only the name bolded, then it does not make it look as if the term "TV's" is actually part of his name, or an official title or the like. A journalist can write about "TV's Milton Berle", and the word "TV's" just helps identify the person. That seems harmless. The fact that Ferguson himself jocularly always begins his show by introducing himself that way doens't make it harmful. Michael Hardy 00:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I think that people who are fans of the show will enjoy seeing it there. It is pretty harmless. --rogerd 23:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
I disagree, I certainly think that we should eliminate the "TV's", its fairly unusual for Wikipedia and goes against the WP:MOS. It also first comes off as thoughtless vandalism by a "IP user" due to its placement. The only time any text should be placed before the bolded article name is when the word is "The", or as otherwise neccesary. The prefix "TV's" is also unneccesary as we can easily clarify that Ferguson is famous for appearing on television in the following sentences or even in the same sentence (i.e. "Craig Ferguson (BIRTHDATE) is a Scottish-born actor and television star"). So I'd be okay with a intro. rewrite, I can perform it if necessary.. — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 21:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't know if you have ever seen his show, but he always introduces himself as "TV's Craig Ferguson". Yes this is non-standard, but as I see it, it is quite harmless. See Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. --rogerd 22:43, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
The only time any text should be placed before the bolded article name is when the word is "The", or as otherwise neccesary.
The only time??? There are very frequent occasions for the bolded title phrase to appear halfway through a moderately long opening sentence. Michael Hardy 22:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

... a few examples:

In mathematics, a quantity that grows exponentially (or geometrically) is one that grows at a rate proportional to .........
In mathematics, a polynomial sequence, i.e., a sequence { pn(x) : n = 0, 1, 2, 3, ... } of polynomials in which the index of each polynomial equals its degree, is a Sheffer sequence (from Isadore M. Sheffer) if the linear operator Q on polynomials in x defined by
Qpn(x) = npn−1(x)
is shift-equivariant.
In order theory, a field of mathematics, a locally finite partially ordered set is one for which every closed interval
[a, b] = {x : a ≤ x ≤ b}
within it is finite. For every locally finite poset and every field of scalars there is an incidence algebra, an associative algebra defined as follows.
In statistics, the concepts of error and residual are easily confused with each other.
In multivariate statistics, the importance of the Wishart distribution stems in part from the fact that it is the probability distribution of the maximum likelihood estimator of the covariance matrix of a multivariate normal distribution.
In this case the bolded article name never appears. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Hardy (talk • contribs)
Your list of examples is nice, but can you present even one example where an article showcasing a person uses this method? I doubt you'll be able to because it's simply a ridiculous concept and absolutely and completely unnecessary—in all of the examples you showed I found that texts preceding the article's title were necessary to explain the concept of the article. Your viewpoint here is akin to starting the George W. Bush article with "America's George W. Bush is the 43rd President of the United States"—completely and utterly pointless and unprofessional. — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 02:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
(I gave two such examples on user:CrazyInSane's talk page. One of them began thus: "His Holiness, Pope Damian of Alexandria was ...." (or something like that). Michael Hardy 00:44, 29 April 2006 (UTC))

CiS goes a bit far in saying that only "The" should ever appear before an article title in the lead paragraph, but in this particular case he is right. The word "TV's" is unencyclopedic by its very nature (I bristle at making a possessive out of an abbreviation; "Television's" would be marginally more acceptable), and worse, it's completely out of place. If this is some kind of inside joke among Ferguson fans, then it needs to be explained, later in the article, not inserted into the lead for fans to snicker at when they read it and to bewilder everyone else. This is such a clear cut case that I'm removing it now. Powers 12:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've edited it so that the first paragraph reads as follows:
"TV's Craig Ferguson" (as he introduces himself to his audiences) (born May 17, 1962) is a Scottish comedian and actor who has done work both in front of and behind the camera. He is the host of The Late Late Show with Craig Ferguson.
The phrase is in quotation marks. I believe the quote is factually correct. The parenthesis correctly attributes it and puts it in its proper setting. Each night at the beginning of his show he greets his audience by saying "Welcome to the Late Late Show. I'm your host, TV's Craig Ferguson." Michael Hardy 00:40, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
It is my firm opinion that it doesn't fit Wikipedia's style, even when phrased as above. The veracity of the anecdote is not in question -- and in fact, it is covered later in the article, where it should be. What is in question is the appropriateness of making it the subject of the lead sentence. I also question why it is so important to you to make sure this jocularity is given pride of place in a serious article. Powers 03:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Jocularity is what Craig Ferguson is about, and seriousness requires the article to convey that clearly. It makes the article clearer, more accurate, and more comprehensible. Michael Hardy 19:24, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I have to strongly disagree with your final sentence. I really cannot see how that is at all a supportable statement. Powers 15:51, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

It is clearer because it is more memorable; it is more memorable because it is humorous. It's not just humor for the sake of humor; it's humor as a memory aid. Michael Hardy 01:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Some very sober writing, e.g. a biographical sketch in Reader's Digest, can refer to "TV's Ed Sullivan", etc. So why is that in any way ungrammatical or too informal? Michael Hardy 01:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to "burst your bubble", Michael, but I can assure you no one is going to unanimously agree with your assertion that "TV's" is encyclopedic, therefore I cannot see it ever being placed in this article without being promptly removed. Again, if you feel it necessary, elaborating on how Ferguson refers to himself as "TV's Craig Ferguson" later on in the article is certainly welcome and encouraged. — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 01:51, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

If "promptly" means several months later, then experience bears you out. But it sat there during that time. Michael Hardy 02:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I was referring to future incidents. Since administrators and other users are now aware of this, they will ensure the prefix no longer is placed on this article. — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 02:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
There's no need for your arrogant, self-satisfied tone of voice. Try to be nice. 4.159.11.95 19:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I would be interested in getting an outside view on this, as I've not seen anyone but the three of us take an interest. Do you know of any admins who have? Powers 14:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm certainly not an admin, but I'll throw my voice behind NOT including "TV's." It does read simply as an in-joke, and Wikipedia is not a fan page. Croctotheface 09:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm an admin, a fan (and countryman) of Craig from way back when he was in Red Dwarf and 2000 Not Out, and I've just spent 3 weeks in the US where I very much enjoyed watching the show. Imho "TV's" should not be included in the opening line, as it contradicts style and is more appropriately mentioned in the body of the article. I appreciate the jocular aspect behind the idea, but it's better to leave it out of the intro. Deizio talk 19:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Dr. Drew Pinsky

In case anyone was wondering, I changed the Dr. Drew reference to note that he's a medical doctor and not a psychologist. ShawnLee 20:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Theme music

after listening to the theme, i think CBS as the last line wrong. Craig sings "Tomorrow's Just YOUR Future Yesterday" not "Tomorrow's Just a Future Yesterday" as on CBS and here! could someone check and see what i am saying is right!--86.136.221.140 01:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

"Alcoholism"

CF's struggles with alcoholism seem to be a major part of his life. Should this be added? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.188.116 (talk) 06:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


I think the last part of his "Personal" about his past struggles with alcoholism is more of an interpretation than what he factualy said on his show about that part of his life. Would be good also to put a link to that speach (available on youtube : "http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bbaRyDLMvA" (not that I'm lazy, I'm just not good at editing html)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.80.14.144 (talk) 01:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Incident with Bill Maher

I changed the line "made light of child molestation" to "made a controversial comment about child molestation." I read the transcript of the incident (see the footnote) and I don't think Maher trivialized or laughed at molestation, but was simply comparing it to severe physical violence. His point was simply that noncoercive molestation isn't as bad as violence. His language was characteristically blunt and polemic, of course, but he never said that child molestation wasn't bad. On the contrary, he said: "That’s just plain wrong." and "Very wrong." I don't see how saying "X is very wrong, however it's not as horrible as Y" can be called "making light of X." --Lode Runner 23:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Someone reverted my changes. If you believe that the comment was indeed "making light of child molestation", explain your reasoning here. To me, "making light" implies trivialization, dismissiveness, or intentional humor and Bill Maher did not exhibit any of these things in his statements. His comments were many things--blunt, insensative, controversial, politically incorrect, and polemic, but I do not believe that the comment itself was meant to "make light" of anything. Yes, the crowd laughed after his "gently masturbated" comment (you can see the entire incident here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zx2o9C12yo) but his point wasn't flippantly delivered, and I don't think that line was purposefully crafted to provoke laughter--rather, it was crafted to be as blunt as possible so as to better illustrate his point (in the typically polemic Bill Maher fashion.) Take away the cameras and the studio audience's laughter (note that Maher didn't smile until after the laughter), and it would've been a 100% serious conversation. Maher said that molestation was "very wrong" and yet, if he had to choose between being on the receiving end of molestation (in this context, as a sexually mature 14 year old boy. No, I'm NOT saying it's right and I'm not defending the scumbag Michael Jackson, just pointing out that there is a massive difference between a teenager and a physically-undeveloped child) and being "savagely beaten", he would rather be molested. And I believe he truly meant it, and I'm not so sure I disagree with that reasoning, and I don't think that this reasoning in any way trivializes or downplays the evil that is child molestation. Being "savagely beaten" can maim you, it can *kill* you. The psychological scars of molestation can run deep indeed, but at least they can't *kill* you, at least they can't cause you to suffer permanent, debilitating injury (this on TOP of the psychological scars that severe beatings often leave behind.)
Post here before reverting again, or I'll have the article locked. --Lode Runner 18:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Alcoholism

I don't want to start a battle over words, but I've changed Mr. Ferguson's status as a "recovered alcoholic" to that of "recovering alcoholic." Having a history of substance abuse myself, I've never heard any health practitioner refer to alcoholism in the curable sense. To quote an article from Answers.com[1]:

"Recovery from alcoholism is a life-long process. In fact, people who have suffered from alcoholism are encouraged to refer to themselves ever after as "a recovering alcoholic, " never a recovered alcoholic. This is because most researchers in the field believe that since the potential for alcoholism is still part of the individual's biological and psychological makeup, one can never fully recover from alcoholism. The potential for relapse (returning to illness) is always there, and must be acknowledged and respected. Statistics suggest that, among middle-class alcoholics in stable financial and family situations who have undergone treatment, 60% or more can be successful at an attempt to stop drinking for at least a year, and many for a lifetime."

Note that I'm not particularly bothered either way, and only decided to make the change after the previous wording caught my eye. If someone feels strongly that it should be reverted, feel free, but note that your view is probably in the minority. --64.222.222.25 06:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Ferguson and the Scottish people

Craig Ferguson should be linked to Scottish people to associate the article with the distinct anthropological and cultural atmosphere of his youth and personal development. In the first line of the article for Ferguson, the phrase "Scottish actor, etc.," refers to a person, not a place. It would seem the most natural and grammatically correct phrase to link to the Scottish people article. User Mais oui has previously cited a policy which does not exist in order to reinforce the desire that the phrase be linked to Scotland, which is neither grammatically correct nor useful to enlighten readers about anything more than the territory upon which occurred the accident of Ferguson's birth. My interest in the matter is as a Scot, a Wikipedian, and a person with an interest in the Ferguson article. I have never edited the content of the Scottish people article. I simply believe it is more useful than the Scotland article in establishing the influence of Ferguson's Scottish background upon his career and habits. Pending discussion with Mais oui, I plan to make the change discussed. However, I would like to solicit any other comments here. 67.101.243.74 08:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The plain fact of the matter is that we link to the country article for nationality descriptors:
  • '''Pierre Moinot''' (born [[March 29]], [[1920]] in [[Poitou]] – died [[March 6]], [[2007]] in [[Paris]]) was a [[France|French]] novelist.
  • '''Samuli Torssonen''' (born [[November 12]], [[1978]], according to the [[Internet Movie Database]]) is a [[Finland|Finnish]] film writer, director, actor and producer.
  • '''Katherine Anne Couric''' (born [[January 7]], [[1957]]) is an [[United States|American]] [[media personality]] who became well-known as co-host of [[NBC]]'s [[The Today Show|''Today'']].
There are, quite literally, hundreds of thousands of examples of this precedent.
There is something profoundly unpleasant with this obsession with ethnicity. Scotland is a civic nation. It is very far indeed from being ethnically or linguistically homogenous. Not all Scottish people are "Scottish people" (sic) (see Demographics of Scotland). Mr Ferguson's ethnicity is totally and utterly irrelevant, and totally unsourced, per WP:RS, too. Go and read Wikipedia:Reliable sources and undue weight. --Mais oui! 08:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
If you continue with your campaign to give undue weight to Mr Ferguson's ethnicity (totally unsourced), then I will raise this as a blatant breach of WP:BLP. --Mais oui! 08:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
It is not a "spam link." As I have said, I recognize that there are articles that link to the respective homelands of people, but there are also articles that link to the people. It is not my business, nor is it of interest to me, if you want to enforce incidents of poor grammar and inexact links to articles just because some other articles include such seeming errors. There is nothing breathtaking about it, although I have to stifle a laugh at the notion that my interest to edit in favor of grammar and relevance has taken your breath away. It also does not bother me that you somehow feel bugged by having to communicate with your colleagues here. If that is the case, please rest assured that I shall consider an extended silence on the matter a concession to my views on your part. Finally, in any further "correspondence," please refrain from suggesting my interest in discribing Ferguson as a member of the Scottish people "spam." There is nothing at Wikipedia:Questions that will resolve this conflict; please keep the discussion relevant to the change.
Furthermore, I have no interest in defending the purity of the Scottish ethnicity. If you aren't ethnically Scottish, just an enthusiastic resident of Scotland, God bless you. Yet, the Scottish people article is more correct because it is about Scottish people like Craig Ferguson. If the Scottish people article seems non-neutral, that is the article you need to edit - not this one. You are required to discuss changes or else you concede the matter to those who are willing to discuss it. 67.101.243.74 09:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
The above refers in part to statements by Mais oui! in three discussions on this matter that he has opted to delete from his talk page. Those complete discussions may be viewed here. He has also deleted those comments I copied here for consideration by a wider editorship. That deletion was technically vandalism on his part, but I'll let it slide and I ask that other editors do the same. As he has conceded his arguments by way of refusing to discuss anything further, outstanding arguments are limited to those listed above to which I have already responded. Ferguson is a member of the Scottish people; whether he be so ethnically or nationally is of little relevance as the article describes both. I have not found any source that describes him otherwise and all sources describe him as Scottish, including those already cited. If Mais oui! decides to grace us with his further correspondence on the matter, he is welcome to do so. If not, I will make the proposed change in 72 hours. Any other comments are also requested. 67.101.243.74 09:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
In that case, this article will be brought to the attention of WP:BLP in 72 hours. --Mais oui! 09:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
That is unnecessary. I will refer to the following references already cited in the article that describe Ferguson as Scottish.
  • "A wry Scottish comic/actor who had..." from Yahoo! Movies
  • "Birthplace: Glasgow, Scotland" and "...Ferguson returned [home] to Scotland" from NNDB
  • "Born in Glasgow, Scotland, Ferguson got his start..." from CBS
I believe the argument you are struggling to make is that I am pushing some agenda about the distant heritage of Ferguson or Scottish people in general. That is not the case and I feel you would have to make a fairly convoluted argument to have someone else conclude that from trying to have the line that describes Ferguson as a Scottish person linked to Scottish people rather than Scotland. 67.101.243.74 10:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

There is a request on Wikipedia:Third opinion‎ on this issue.[2] It is one I come to cold as I have never considered the problem before. So I read what is here and thought, OK I'll look to see what is currently linked for a prominent Scotsman and looked at Gordon Brown. (sigh! no use!). So I went to the second division: Alex Salmond article links Scottish to Scotland so does the Tam Dalyell and Billy Connolly articles -- I gave up after three. Given that the article Scottish people includes "or a person who is descended from ethnic Scots and identifies as a Scottish person." and other articles seem to link to Scotland, I think linking to Scotland is less likely to open up the possibility of confusion in the mind of the person following the link than linking to Scottish people. Therefore I think the link should be to [[Scotland|Scottish]]. --Philip Baird Shearer 00:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it should link to Scottish people. It says "Craig Ferguson is a Scottish actor, etc., that is, a Scottish person. Even if other articles are mistakenly linked to Scotland because editors in the earliest days of Wikipedia linked them to the country rather than the people, don't you feel it is something we can change now to be more exact? It makes much more sense to me, anyway, to link "Ferguson was born in Glasgow, Scotland to Scotland. What do you think? 67.101.243.74 05:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
"Scottish" refers to his nationality, not to his ethnicity; therefore must link to the civic entity, not to some vague and highly subjective concept of "Scottish people". The WP:MOSBIO makes it crystal clear that it is nationality that is to be noted; and that ethnicity is only relevant to biographical articles in very limited situations. --Mais oui! 07:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you completely. I have no idea from where you have the notion that Scottish people is about anything other than the people from Scotland. It is about the Scottish nationality, not a secret circle of people of ancient Scottish descent or anything else weird as you seem to think. The article you persistently cite is about the place, Scotland, not the people who live there or are from there. Ferguson is a person, not a country. 67.101.243.74 20:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Since he is living in the States, and making his fame here, I think that a pipe to Scottish people would be more appropriate. If he were living in Scotland and making his fame while still based there, like Ken MacLeod, Charles Stross and that crowd, I would pipe to Scotland. I do think, however, that some people are making far too big a fuss about the whole thing. --Orange Mike 12:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

With no consensus reached, another three days before making the change seem in order. 67.101.243.74 01:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

67.101.243.74, stop reverting my change or I will take action to have your IP blocked. Bill Maher's comment did NOT make light of child molestation (in fact, he shared a traumatic childhood experience of his own) and I explained my reasoning clearly. Twice (see above.) If you cannot be bothered to state your case for the original version (which casts Maher in a bad light and trivializes the point he was making, a point which Ferguson was too dense to grasp) you have no business editing the article at all. --Lode Runner 03:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Movie

craig ferguson was in a movie called "the big tease" where he plays a homosexual hairdresser — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pauldonald86 (talk • contribs) 14:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Dancer

I'm pretty sure Ferguson studied to be a dancer at college. I remember seeing his TV special (just after he'd dumped the Bing Hitler character) and I'm sure he was a quite accompished stage dancer. I'll see if I can find anything about that. -- John Fader (talk | contribs) 09:51, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Well, he didn't go to college. He's said so many times. On an NPR interview with Terry Gross, however, he talked about performing in some plays and cabaret shows that involved dancing. Maybe that's where he learned.Nigel Napalm 22:54, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't have it to hand, but I am certain the fanzine for the 'Honey at the Core' tape cassette - on which Ferguson appears as Bing Hitler - mentions his having studied dance in New York. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.25.194.76 (talk) 10:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Britney Spears

I'd like to praise the editor of this site for quickly adding Ferguson's defence of Britney Spears and decision to "leave the vulnerable alone."

What a breath of fresh air to have someone take a stand for kindness in media and celebrity coverage when someone is really suffering.

Viciousness in the public arena wasn't always this bad, there was once a lot more civility in public discourse.

Ferguson is now my hero and so is the editor of this site.

128.138.173.204 19:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC) I had to fix some typos there.Sposato (talk) 00:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Citizenship?

Anyone know if he's a citizen yet? I thought he just mentioned "I'm glad to be an American" on his show and he's been talking about his application forever now... Viper007Bond 08:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I was just watching the episode from Oct. 25, and he mentioned with Kevin Nealon that he could get in trouble with his citizenship application for talking about his legal trouble. Also, the Pres. Bush sketch he did earlier in the show noted that he couldn't vote. ShawnLee 20:13 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Apparently Bill Bryson is now a British citizen - why can't they just do a swap? 217.155.20.163 02:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I find it pretty interesting that he is a household name in the USA but the average Joe in his native Scotland and the UK as a whole has never heard of him!Just goes to show the Americans love a Scottish accent. I'm from Scotland so I was surprised that someone from Glasgow has no recognition back here for what they have accomplished over in the USA.--CharlesBronson18 14:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

What on earth gives you the impression that he is unknown in Scotland? He has been a very weel kent face for decades now (sorry Craig, but you are getting on a bit now... ). I can remember seeing those 'Bing Hitler' posters splattered around the Edinburgh of my childhood, during the Festival. And for a long time he was never off the flippin telly! True, since he crossed the pond his profile has dropped, but most Scots over the age of 20 would recognise his fizzog.
And plenty of people in his homeland have noted his successful career in the States, and wish him all the very best! Good on you. --Mais oui! 06:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
When he's naturalised, I'll put him in that category. Until the ceremony hits the AP wire, I'll use the UK ex-pat tag.
It's not unusual for some British celebrities to be better known in the US than at home and vice versa.Sposato (talk) 00:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
One more thing. Since the big day is coming, the article can use US spelling.Sposato (talk) 00:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
OK, he was supposed to get sworn in today (February 1st). Did it happen? Michael Hardy (talk) 02:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Just as you typed your post. I changed the ex-pat category to the naturalized citizen one since policy only allows one or the other.75.95.39.239 (talk) 02:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Date of naturalization?

A recent edit to the article was accompanied by a summary saying he's now an American. Although I was aware he had passed the test, my impression was that he becomes a citizen when he is sworn in and that that will be at some later date. Does anyone know the specifics of the timing? Michael Hardy (talk) 23:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


You know, this page is longer than the actual article. I have recently begun reading discussions, and it's fascinating how hostile people get. It seems ridiculous. I can understand if it were regarding someone's actual personal life. Apparently this page IS some people's lives. Remind you of anyone? I KNOW! 02:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)PaulaWalla —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.40.105.16 (talk)

Comments moved from wrong part of page

The below comments were on the wrong part of the page. I have moved them here for clarity:

the 666th show was on 5/03/08 He made a lot of fun of the number 666. tilda Woober (talk) 08:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC) woober Woober (talk) 08:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC) So there. This is sort of new because he's protected on Wikipedia now from random updates.Woober (talk) 08:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)wooberWoober (talk) 08:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)Funny, because I think my telling them to see the Wiki post prompted the protection process. I am a Ferguson phile sort of and I thought they should be aware. So I emailed them. I was hoping for corrections. They froze this site completely! Whoa! Cut and paste, I didn't post in the right spot here. Love all of you Wiki volunteers... I hope you had fun in Egypt if you went. I wish I had been there with you. Woober (talk) 08:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)wooberWoober (talk) 08:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC) He did a lot of Enya imitations to imply the number 666. Why? I think it's because of the nebulous nature of Enya and 666.Woober (talk) 08:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)woober Um, I wrote some of the more accepted portions of this article. : ) Thanks for the editing you wondrous, yet at proper times hateful, volunteers!

OMGOMGOMGOMG HE'S CUTE! HE'S CUTE! HE'S CUTE! 66.213.118.66 (talk) 19:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)Halee

--Rockfang (talk) 08:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Archiving

I would like to set up archiving for this talk page. Would anyone disagree with a 90 day setting?--Rockfang (talk) 08:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

"OCD"

I don't think we need to know about his OCD or non-OCD unnless he wants to tell us about it. Let's relate to the Man and not the illness.

He's a great comic and obviously a great human being. Let's appreciate that.

128.138.173.204 19:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Who cares? I sure don't. He's funny and handsome and I'd think so no matter what. 66.213.118.66 (talk) 20:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC) furfreegal666

Craig seems to exhibit symptoms of Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder. Evidenced by his repeating of the same catch phrases and jokes well beyond the limits of normal behavior. Has he ever openly discussed this or is there further evidence of this from other projects he has been involved in.

Some jokes are funny only the first time. Others endure. And some are funny precisely because of one-time-only variations from the habitual way of repeating the thing, and would not be funny but for habitual repetition. Craig Ferguson is a master of all of these techniques. Michael Hardy 21:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I see your point, David Letterman does this as well. However Dave will do it for a week to a month or so. Craig however has been doing the same jokes and mannerisms for so long it seems more strange than funny. Sometimes when watching him I can see him wince when delivering the cheeky monkey line like it pains him to say it for the hundreth or so time.

Johnny Carson repeated the same jokes for nearly 30 years! I don't think Craig has OCD just because he repeats jokes. One comedic effect on such a setup makes a joke sometimes funnier over time because it's been delivered so much.Char645 09:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

My guess is that Craig's repetitiveness lets us in on "the joke." If you are a regular viewer, you're in the inner circle of "late night friends in-the-know," if not, you have to get with the program...a brilliant technique, really. Then again, many of my recovering alcoholic pals have symptoms of OCD, so maybe it's just who he is. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.65.44.104 (talk • contribs) 07:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC).

Homosexuality

is craig gay? he jokes about it a lot on the show. if he is, it should be added to the page. if he isn't, he could've fooled me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.77.25.180 (talk) 05:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, he just jokes about being gay because he is "European" he's been married several times too, so I'm pretty sure he isn't gay Zell65 (talk) 08:02, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, he's twice married and has a son. Plus, considering the way he fawns over his female guests, I'd say case closed! :)

Ttenchantr (talk) 05:26, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Ferguson-inspired Screen Name

The screen name "MotherFerging Princess" is used by female users who admire the comic. It's a playful reference to the lyric "motherfucking princess" from the Avril Lavigne song "Girlfriend."

That's where mine's from, too. I wonder if there're any other MotherFerginPrincesses out there? If there are, please comment me! MotherFerginPrincess (talk) 22:05, 16 October 2008 (UTC) MotherFerginPrincess

Cartoon work

He's done voices for a few cartoons, including American Dad and Freakazoid. I think these should be added to the page. MotherFerginPrincess (talk) 12:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC) MotherFerginPrincess

Multi-Lingual????

What other languages does he speak? He's obviously fluent in Scottish and English. This guy seems to be a fucking polymath.

Scottish isn't a language. Perhaps you mean Scots, though it is unlikely that he speaks it fluently (he can certainly understand it though, as most native English speakers can). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.19.118.156 (talk) 22:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Rather, "Scottish" is an ambiguous term that could refer to either Scots (Scottish English, which is quite different from ordinary English as spoken by Scots) or Scottish Gaelic. —Largo Plazo (talk) 23:19, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Status of his circumcision/opinions?

I don't believe this edit was necessary. I don't think that the circumcision status of people is necessary for Wikipedia. I might be more understanding if this was an article for a porn star, but he (obviously) is not one. Any opinions?--Rockfang (talk) 10:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I think this is very important. Not only to show that he is the only uncircumcised talk show host in the country, but also to inspire confidence in other uncircumcised individuals who are mocked because they are intact, despite all other Western world countries being against routine infant circumcision. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.33.203.200 (talk) 20:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I am a teenage girl with a crush on him and I don't want to know about this! MotherFerginPrincess (talk) 22:02, 16 October 2008 (UTC) MotherFerginPrincess

Definitely leave it out. The fact that he was born in Scotland and is not listed as Jewish or Muslim tells you that anyway. Shinigami27 (talk) 23:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Monologue

"Welcome to Los Angeles, California, welcome to the Late Late Show. I am your host, TV's Craig Ferguson. Please sit down, relax, unbuckle your pants. You too ladies. It's a great day for America, is it really?, well actually..."--Dguenther - DGun (talk) 10:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

No harp

Notice this edit summary. Is this actually a recurring thing here? He keeps saying over and over again on his show that, contrary to what it said on Wikipedia, he's never played the harp. If this was deleted just today, then someone must be coming here and putting it back repeatedly. How many months has this been going on? Michael Hardy (talk) 23:47, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

He does not play the harp in real life, but his character on The Drew Carey Show did. Maybe that's where the confusion comes from. MotherFerginPrincess (talk) 14:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Dublin or Glasgow

This article says he was born in both Dublin and Glasgow. Unless his mother was on an airplane or boat during labor, he was born in only one or the other. 141.156.225.132 (talk) 06:29, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Jonathan Jurado?

"Ferguson is best friends with a man he met in Puerto Rico named Jonathan Jurado they both spend a lot of time fishing or just humming songs under an oak tree." Source?

Chunxie (talk) 13:01, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Wife Megan

Is there any more information we could add here? He has mentioned he several times on the show (only as his wife) has she ever been on the show (as a guest or in the audience where she appeared on camera) or does she try to stay out of the 'lime light'. There is a link to imdb with a pic, and she seems very young, any one know her age? Tydamann (talk) 06:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Appearance on Family Guy

Craig Ferguson appeared in the May 3, 2009 episode of Family Guy, entitled We Love You, Conrad in his Late Late Show monologue commenting on a fictional news story within the episode's plot. This should be addressed in someway.

TheSkyOrBust (talk) 23:59, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Age difference?

Actually Megan Wallace Cunningham is just 11 years Craig's junior. She was born on May 1973. Someone should make that change on the page where it mentions that Megan is 20 years younger than Craig —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.167.30.87 (talk) 16:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The reference didn't mention the age difference at all, so I've removed any mention of it. If you have a reference for the 11 years difference we could add it back in, but to be honest I think the age gap is fairly trivial. "Man marries younger woman! And, in other news..." ;-) Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 16:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Let's make him Irish instead

I say we should make him out to be Irish, to appease all the irish-pride people who seem to think that absolutely everyone's heritage is "irish," as well as all "old traditional sounding" music being irish, and so forth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wōdenhelm (talk • contribs) 07:40, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Scottish, Not British

Best to call him Scottish, Has always said he is Scottish search videos on Youtube from the Late Late Show With Craig Ferguson, He says he is Scottish in Several of them, Announced on Live TV. --78.150.194.249 (talk) 00:00, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Then provide a reference from a reliable source and do not revert again until you have a reliable reference to support your claim. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 00:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
[3] --78.150.194.249 (talk) 00:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Not a reliable source; it's user-created content. You also need to provide a reference in the article itself, not a raw link on the talk page. This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 00:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
(Other editors may also be interested in this. This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 00:08, 8 March 2009 (UTC))
What's wrong with the usatoday citation in the infobox? Tarc (talk) 04:43, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Nothing - I just hadn't noticed it when this kicked off. The IP who initiated this is on a pointy crusade to make non-Scottish subjects British and Scottish subjects Scottish, regardless of consensus or reality. In this rare case I realised reality actually ran in the IP's favour ;-) The IP, incidentally, is the same editor who adds images and sub-headings to Scottish articles (and Scotland in particular). Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 08:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree with the use of the term "Scottish" in this case, certainly not on its own. Mr Ferguson is a citizen of the United States of America and of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the latter means that he is a British citizen. It is impossible to be a citizen of only Scotland which is a nation within the United Kingdom. The problem in this case is the non-specific nature of the term nationality, which could mean nationality as in the sense of personal identity- as in a person who identifies as Italian American, but actually is only a citizen of the US- or nationality in the sense of nationality law which doesn't recognise "Scottish" citizenship on its own. Mr Ferguson is a Scottish British Citizen. If I'm honest I don't want to deny the man his right to call himself Scottish, but I don't like that his legal citizenship isn't properly described... demonyms in the UK are sometimes complicated even for us British! Dan (talk) 22:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I have many friends in Glasgow, and they are all proud Scots. They self-identify as Scottish, not British. As for his citizenship, Mr. Ferguson is an American now, so the point is moot.Gotmywaderson (talk) 20:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • "Nationality" has at least three senses worth identifying in this case.
    1. Being a national of a sovereign state; in this case the nation is the United Kingdom (whose full name is mentioned above), and Ferguson was British and remains British-born.
    2. Belonging to one of many more or less clearly defined ethnicities or national identities (especially likely to be discussed in the case of those aspiring to a nation state); in this case, the nationality is that of the Scots, and Ferguson was and remains Scottish.
    3. Within some states, there are legal subdivisions that recognize and approximate nationalities of the ethnic kind; i believe Belgium (with a Flemish and Walloon subdivision) is a case of this, and many of the states of India at least in effect have this role. My understanding is that the British use "nation" in this sense, with at least England and Scotland being such nations. (Wales may in some sense be least among supposed equals: note the lack of any sign of the Cross of Saint David in the Union Jack, among other hints that it is closer to having been absorbed into and subordinated to England.) One would be justified in assuming that an Edinburgh-born British Londoner with a heavy Scottish brogue, unless maintaining a voting residence in Scotland, votes only for member of the British Parliament (not one in it and one in the Scottish one, as most Scots do), and is of no particular concern to those who administer the Scottish nation.
      --Jerzy•t 19:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it is best to identify him by the more informative term "Scottish". But lest anyone be unaware of it:

* Scotland is in Britain;
* England is in Britain;
* Wales is in Britain;

If I'm not mistaken, the areas named in the three bullet points above cover the whole island. Many Americans are confused about this and some confused people think "Britain" is synonymous with "England". Michael Hardy (talk) 21:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

  • "Britain" is ambiguous between an island and a sovereign state, so use of that term here merely heightens the confusion. I you live or were born in Northern Ireland, then British, Irish, Northern-Irish, and Ulster can all be applied to you in various contexts. (And "British" applies even if you've never crossed the Irish Sea to the island of Britain.)
    --Jerzy•t 19:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Scottish douchebag

He says you can find him by Googling "scottish douchebag" instead of http://cbs.com/late_late_show , but it's not true. I'm going to try creating the Rdr to the accompanying article.
--Jerzy•t 04:47, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

  • It was speedy deleted as "G10: Attack page", despite the subject not being doubted as the coiner. Deleter claimed BLP leaves no room. My mileage varies. [shrug]
    Ironically, for the time being, the search still produces him as first hit.
    --Jerzy•t 21:46, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
    Not sure what's ironic about it. The only Ghits for it with regards to CF are from YouTube videos of the show. Before he made that little JOKE, it didn't bring his name up at all. Unitanode 17:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
    • I misspoke: there was a period after the deletion when the deleted article was the first hit on the WP search, due presumably to caching of search indexes.
      In any case, let's not turn differing judgments about which jokes might be notable and what is ironic into a series of PAs.
      --Jerzy•t 19:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
      Not sure where you see any personal attacks, but I've offered none. What specific concerns do you have with what I wrote to you? Unitanode 19:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
      There is a line in WP:PA of which you should be aware: "Accusing someone without justification of making personal attacks is also considered a form of personal attack." Please either point out where I "turn[ed] differing judgments about which jokes might be notable and what is ironic into a series of PAs" or strike through and retract the accusation. Unitanode 19:56, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
      • I did not intend to imply (and BTW did not state) that an attack had occurred, but i was concerned that a minor matter might be too rapidly tending in an un-collegial direction to escape mention:
        I considered that
        1. your responding to the (IMO obviously) colloquial use of "ironic" (often derided, but neither ignorant nor innovative -- "the irony of the universe" appeared around a hundred years ago near the climax of G.B. Shaw's Passion, Poison, and Petrifaction), seemingly directing my attention to the encyclopedic sense of the corresponding noun, resembles (i would have thought obviously so, tho perhaps i erred in that) "Obviously i have to instruct you on the words you are using."
        2. your shouting-caps use of the word "joke" (especially in the context of a comedian who so seldom says anything not meant to be a joke, that he actually occasionally says "I want to say something serious") resembles "Obviously you are too thick to recognize a joke when you hear one."
      Either of those, if intended, would constitute a PA, and especially so after they had been uttered, together, in response to what i considered my two obvious indications (my paraphrase of YMMV, and my parenthetic "shrug" -- i.e., "no big deal") that the matter had become negligible to me. (I acknowledge that my use of "ironically" was ambiguous, and that my careless mis-description of the last search i had done was likely to be misleading, so that i can understand those two preceding cues being weakened. And i offer my apology for that carelessness.)
      I thot others were likely to construe your remarks as PAs, and felt myself obligated (to you and to the community) to raise the need to avoid both PAs and the appearance of PAs, by presenting you with the occasion to say that your (IMO) confrontational-sounding language was not intended as PAs, and to restate yourself in a way that will make that clearer.
      --Jerzy•t 08:39, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I doubt very seriously that anyone merely stumbling upon this discussion would have construed anything I've written thus far as a personal attack. As I take collegiality quite seriously, I had a wikiaquaintance look at this little conversation. They were as confused as I was as to how you could possibly construe anything here as a personal attack. I would recommend that in the future you refrain from implying that the other party in a discussion is engaging in personal attacks, as making such claims is itself a violation of WP:NPA. If you have any further comments or questions about this, perhaps it would best be taken to personal talkpages, as this is not article-related. Unitanode 13:30, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

On-air denial of harp playing ability

On the The Late Late Show with Craig Ferguson for June 8, 2009 (show actually starts after midnight, therefore technically very early morning June 9th), Craig specifically mentioned his Wikipedia bio and noted an incorrect statement that he could play the harp. He said he could not, and never had lessons. Item no longer in bio. — Becksguy (talk) 05:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Said item was obviously a joke (from viewing the show in question) and didn't need to be labeled as vandalism.132.178.201.8 (talk) 06:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The episode where Craig talked about his Wiki page and harp playing re-aired the week of August 14, 2009 (do not remember exact date) And the harp inserts and reverts continue.ElphabaKathryn (talk) 23:51, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

"Penis Parade"?

"He also hosted the "Men Love for Other Mens Penis" parade". I'm taking this out. I googled it and found nothing. It just seems to be stuck on at the end of a sentence about the Boston Pops concert, plus there's no source.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.89.223.247 (talk) 01:10, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Long Lost Daughter?

In the article it states, "Also, he has a lost daughter back in Scotland named Krystle Dinunzio". Is there any verification for this since I have not been able to locate it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.244.53.74 (talk) 04:43, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Jewish?

On the show airing 6/26/09 (possibly a repeat) Ferguson mentioned that he would be participating in a USO tour which would be making a stop in Germany. He went on to say that he was worried about being in Germany as he has made many jokes about Germans on his show. Ferguson said that he makes fun of them because "they tried to kill my family", and that people have told him "that was a long time ago", but he has not gotten over it. This bit was light-hearted but seemed to imply he was referring to the holocaust and that he is of Jewish ancestry. (User:Not Registered)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.131.37.42 (talk) 06:25, 27 June 2009

During the Second World War the Luftwaffe bombed Britain, including targets around Glasgow (Maryhill in Glasgow was hit). I'd take the "tried to kill my family" quip as a reference to that. His parent's ancestry is Protestant and Catholic, and it would have been his parents' families that were alive during the Second World War. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 09:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Ferguson has called himself a Protestant, but in view of various opinions he has expressed, including deploring the way doctrinaire religion leads to wars (between Muslims and Christians, and between Protestants and Catholics), I suspect he's agnostic on most or maybe all religious doctrines. He grew up in Scotland and so did his parents. The Germans bombed Scotland. Michael Hardy (talk) 21:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

(Sigh) Believe it or not, IP user, WWII wasnt all about "Big evil Germans against the poor innocent jews." Britain did indeed participate in WWII. Research Blitzkrieg. —ᚹᚩᛞᛖᚾᚻᛖᛚᛗ (ᚷᛖᛋᛈᚱᛖᚳ) 02:24, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
No need to be rude. Tell the American Education System to mention that more, and I would've known. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.71.59 (talk) 02:39, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
He's not an agnostic, he's a deist mostly. See his interviews. He puts himself in the "Church of Scotland" category by habit but then corrects himself saying that's more of a tradition/hereditary thing but in practice more deistic. I don't think it's relevant to the article in any case. --98.227.38.196 (talk) 22:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say simply he's an agnostic; I said "agnostic on most or maybe all religious doctrines". He could be deistic, but is that a doctrine? I think I understood "doctrine" to mean something like "dogma", i.e. a statement that a church requires its members to believe. I suspect Craig Ferguson doesn't believe in such things. Michael Hardy (talk) 01:35, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that's all speculative. We know he's said that he is of the Church of Scotland (Basically Anglican/Prebysterian). We don't know if he's anything else. He's never said he was deist nor acted as such (do you know what Deist is?). He has stated that while writing his book he felt that he was an atheist, but when finishing it he threw the idea out of the window. Though in his book he makes it clear that he is not anti-religion, rather, anti-fundamentalist. Personally, the way he talks about God, he seems like a spiritual person, but I doubt he follows a religion. But that's just me. 98.198.83.12 (talk) 23:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Citizenship in lede

In changing "multiple citizenship" to "dual citizenship" here, User:Mais oui! said in the edit summary: "... and is this really, really important enough to be in the Intro??". It indeed is not sufficiently important enough compared to what he is notable for. His UK citizenship only occupies eight words in the section on citizenship, so it shouldn't be in the lede, per WP:LEDE. He is, however, very well noted for being culturally and ethnically Scottish, and makes a big deal of it himself. But that is not about citizenship, especially since he is a citizen of the United Kingdom, not Scotland. I think we should take that sentence out of the lede, and expand the lede slightly to cover more of what he is primarily and best noted for; being Scottish and his TV and acting roles. Any thoughts on that? For example, maybe mention The Big Tease, for which he was both the star and a co-author. — Becksguy (talk) 03:15, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:LEAD states:

The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject should be established in the first sentence of the lead, if possible.

I would put strong emphasis on the word 'notability': a good article lead explains clearly and concisely why a topic is notable. So, in the case of a tv presenter/comedian/actor the focus must be on their work. Personal details, like his recent successful application for US citizenship, should be in one of the lower sections. It is a "fun fact", but it is not remotely why Ferguson is notable. --Mais oui! (talk) 04:14, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Completely agree so I'm removing the sentence from the lede, per WP:LEDE and agreement here, and will merge it into the "Citizenship" section. This article's introduction is somewhat weak, I think, and could use some expansion. — Becksguy (talk) 05:27, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Tattoo

Added a reference to his having a tattoo, I don't think it's adequate, but if someone has a better source, feel free to change it. --Hourick (talk) 23:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I added some info about his tattoos as well as refs. He mentioned the tattoo in honor of his mother on one of his shows, but I was hoping to find another source for that information besides a YouTube video. LovelyLillith (talk) 18:05, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Fan base

Can someone please add something to the article about how many TEENAGED fangirls this guy has?!?! Seriously, you go to some of these Websites and you'd think he was from Panic at the Disco or something. I mean, there's lots of people older than teens that like him, but damn. It's still mostly women, not just teens. Do you think maybe there's something more than his humor at work here? PrepJock101 (talk) 13:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Scottish vs. Scottish-American

There have been more than a few attempts to change the term "Scottish-American" to "Scottish" in the lede, all reverted so far. I'm all for ethnic pride, but since Ferguson was born in Scotland (and is therefore a UK citizen) and then moved to the US and became a naturalized US citizen (and therefore holds dual citizenship), I believe the hyphenated version is more correct. If he had just moved to the US without becoming a citizen, then I would have agreed that Scottish would be more correct. Any comments? — Becksguy (talk) 12:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

  • This is clearly correct. He loves Scotland, and makes no secret of that, but he's very proud to now be an American, and makes no secret of that either. UnitAnode 14:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Clearly not. MOS:BIO says "Nationality – 1. In the normal case this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen or national, or was a citizen when the person became notable." Ferguson became known as a comedian in the UK before he moved to America. In addition, neither of his parents are American. I have changed the lead to reflect this. Chris 42 (talk) 21:36, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
One of the first sentences of that guideline is, " Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions." This is an exception, and a rather obvious one. And, for the record, he only became notable in the Wikipedia-sense after coming to America. There are all sorts of "comedians in the UK" (and many other countries, for that matter) who aren't even close to notable. He became notable after becoming a minor TV star, while living in America. UA 04:50, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Arguably he is more notable for hosting the Late Late show, which is an American show on CBS. As Unitanode and I both pointed out, he is proud of being Scottish and of being American. And his ethnic/national identities are both well sourced. There is no consensus at this point to remove Scottish-American from the lede. Absent compelling rationale and consensus to keep that descriptive phrase out, it should be restored. — Becksguy (talk) 04:41, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

So are you saying that even though Ferguson first became notable in the land of his birth to UK audiences, the "Wikipedia-sense" indicates that a person is only notable when they have a successful career in the USA? This same debate has been going on within the Anthony Hopkins article but he had a longer-established career in the UK beforehand, so he is described as Welsh. To me, at first glance, the phrase "Scottish-American" would indicate that his parents are of mixed nationality. I think this is another example of the "He's ours now" problem that can happen with dual citizenship. Chris 42 (talk) 13:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
No. Reread what I actually posted. He was a minor comic in the UK before hitting it big in America. He makes a HUGE deal about being an American now. I mean, come on, it's one of his big-time set pieces, as well as the TITLE OF HIS FRIGGIN' MEMOIR! Why is this even up for debate? The only real choice is whether to describe him as "American" (which is how he describes himself) or "Scottish-American". UA 15:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
No need to shout — point taken. Life's too short! :-) Chris 42 (talk) 18:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
It was emphasis, not intended as shouting. And it just seemed so patently absurd to be having a debate on this, when he titled his memoir as he did. UA 05:55, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Notable trivia or just slang?

The word "Fergasm," defined as: "The feeling of euphoric happiness or sexual pleasure that occurs when a Craig Ferguson fan sees him do or hears him say something very sexy." It's a very common word in the Craig Ferguson fan community and even made it on his show one night. My question: Is it notable enough to be mentioned here? It's obviously slang, but it seems notable. 76.1.48.210 (talk) 19:48, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's notable unless it's mentioned semi-regularly as a sort of "Catch phrase" or an ongoing joke/punchline. --Hourick (talk) 17:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Citation Needed

Why is a citation needed that he toured supporting Harry Enfield? He played at the University of Salford pavilion as part of Freshers week in 1985, but I hardly think that I qualify as a citabable source even though I (and about a hundred other people were present). in 1985 he was billed as Bing Hitler. RichardLetts (talk) 07:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

'Live At The Tron' - 'citation needed'

Now I happen to know this album exists, since I bought it in a record shop this afternoon and I'm listening to it right now. But, how does one cite a record? ;) How do I prove it exists and I never made it up...

In the interim, I've added a Discography section and inserted it there Meaning of Fife (talk) 20:21, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

NOT in "Gamers: Dorkness Rising"

It was added to his filmography but I check it out and according to IMDb, at least, it's a different actor with the same name. They list the actor on their page as "Craig Ferguson (II)". The Wikipedia Page for the movie also doesn't list him anywhere. I was as excited as anyone to think he would have made a cameo, but alas it's another bloke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.247.192.99 (talk) 06:26, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

"Ferguson Theory"?

This is mentioned at the start of the "US Career" segment, but it is not mentioned anywhere else in the article. Can someone describe what this was?

Marzolian (talk) 22:53, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

In jail?

Last weekend on the Wanda Sykes show, Craig was discussing with Wanda Sykes about how she was brought on to play Drew Carey's boss (Drew was also on the show) for a short period. Craig mentioned that his vacancy and her opportunity to play Drew's boss was brought on because Craig was in jail at the time. Wanda said she was told Craig was "working on a project" at the time and Craig said yeah, his project was "he was working on getting out of jail" and made some air quotes. He stated emphatically that he meant he (not his character) was in jail.

Any details on this? I found it really interesting that Craig would be eligible for US citizenship only a few years after getting out of jail. Was he just playing with us? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bollinger (talk • contribs) 08:03, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Shark Week?

As anyone that watch's the late late show knows craig is hosting Discovery Channels shark week, (he's only being talking about it for a month lol) is anyone going to add that? Lorne852 (talk) 07:42, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm rather anxious about it myself, but I think it should be a minor mention within the article and an addition to list of appearances. --Hourick (talk) 19:14, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Unusual Anatomy

It should be mentioned somewhere in the article that he has three nipples and only one testicle. --Dekker451 (talk) 07:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

You misheard. It's three testicles and one nipple. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.176.225 (talk) 07:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
I think you're right. Just last night he said he has three wooden testicles. --Dekker451 (talk) 12:33, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
...and bells on his leg. Jonathunder (talk) 21:35, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Pretty sure that's not true... casecloser (talk) 19:05, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

It is true. He has said so himself several times.--Dekker451 (talk) 06:15, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
He's a comedian. Comedians do that. Michael Hardy (talk) 21:42, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
And your point is...? --Dekker451 (talk) 03:34, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Dekker451: Since you have reverted multiple vandalism-correcting edits about the claim of "three testicles" and now, a "wooden knee", and raise the issue in your edit summaries, I am posting the following here as directly related to your posts here and edits to the Craig Ferguson article, as well as to your own talk page:
In the future, it would be a more wise decision on your part to not attempt to make claims that unsourced and clearly false content is not vandalism, and in particular, to not multiply revert edits which remove such vandalism.
In the article for Craig Ferguson, you must be cognizant of the fact that it is impossible to be born with a "wooden knee". Further, the extraordinary claim of "three testicles" requires not only a reliable secondary source, but would likely be insufficiently notable to be placed in the lead sentence of a section on his personal life. Should you revert to such vandalism in the future, I will have little choice but to post warnings on your talk page concerning vandal edits, escalating as necessary to the point where you may be temporarily blocked from editing. If you have any questions about the vandalism policy, please refer to Wikipedia:Vandalism. If you have questions about Wikipedia policy concerning biographies of living persons, please read Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Thank you for your cooperation in helping to maintain vandal-free content on Wikipedia. -- Michael Devore (talk) 05:39, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
The person who the article is about isn't considered a source? Last time I checked primary sources were preferable and the person about whom a biographical article is written is about as primary as a source can get.
Not that it really matters since it was obviously a joke and a reference to his show. get a sense of humor. --Dekker451 (talk) 14:12, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Posting of joke content to an article, and reverting removals of the "joke" is clear vandalism. As you have indicated that you are aware that the content is inaccurate and have willfully reverted back to the vandal content on more than one occasion, it is also clear that you are aware that you have engaged in vandalism to the article. This is a waste of everyone's time, including your own. Presumably with the knowledge you have thus gained, you will not behaving in such a manner in the future, lest you lose your editing privileges, as clearly delineated in Wikipedia policy on vandalism.
Also, when you "checked" about sources you must have overlooked the section on primary sources (WP:PRIMARY) which states, in part, Our policy: Primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source.
With regards to your talk page, I must admit you are not of sufficient importance to me that remarks about me having a stick up my ass are worth responding to there, although there are other editors on Wikipedia who might, if treated similarly, warn you about personal attacks (Wikipedia:No personal attacks). Also, my response was not a threat, but a notice concerning your behavior which you may choose to ignore if you feel that you are not interested in improving Wikipedia and no longer wish to edit articles here. Thank you for your attention to basic editing etiquette. -- Michael Devore (talk) 19:49, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Get a dictionary. Specifically look up the words "attack" and "threat". I never attacked you. You did however say that if I don't do what you want me to I would be blocked. That is by definition a threat.
And as far as whether or not you think I'm important enough to respond to, I don't give a shit what you think is or isn't important but frankly you were lucky I didn't decide to delete your threat, ignore you and report you.--Dekker451 (talk) 01:36, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Most article vandals, when confronted on their behavior and who reply, claim variations on what you have just posted here. "I didn't do anything wrong, you threatened me, I'll report you, it was just a joke and not vandalism, and where is your sense of humor." This sort of thing literally happens on Wikipedia many thousands of times a year. While it might be diverting to view the process of an attempt to report me for warning you against engaging in vandalism, I will instead assume that you have wisely decided to stop reposting false information to this or other articles, and that you have thus exhausted the extent of my interest in what you do. Please feel free to further express your outrage on your talk page if it makes you feel better, as long as it is not in conflict with Wikipedia policy. I have nothing further to discuss with you within those boundaries. If you do not wish to interact with me again, do not revert my vandal reverts, nor those of the many other editors who spend a lot of time cleaning up vandalism on Wikipeda. Thank you. -- Michael Devore (talk) 02:17, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't give a shit what vandals do, but what you just said is totally hypocritical, because you threatened to have me blocked and that's a hell of a lot worse than reporting a bully.
Go ahead and get me blocked right now. I dare you. If you don't then you're obviously a coward who's full of shit and like I said, I don't give a damn about empty threats. --Dekker451 (talk) 05:12, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Please try to remain civil. This issue appears to be resolved and, in that case, there's really no reason to prolong its discussion. Perhaps this is a good time to take a break.  Chickenmonkey  05:48, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Scottish American?

I'd never heard of this guy till about 30 seconds ago, but the last time I checked his birthplace of Glasgow was in Scotland, not "Scottish America". There is far, far too much of this microscopic racial descent nonsense on Wikipedia, which adds nothing at all to our understanding of people. Do we really need to know that someone famous (take Robert De Niro, for example) is possibly of Italian, Irish, German, French, and Dutch ancestry? Is Whatshisname Ferguson really half American because he has dual citizenship? No. He's a Scottish bloke with a Green Card. Guv2006 (talk) 06:53, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Do you have Asperger's or are you just dense? "Dual citizenship" involves, wait for it, CITIZENSHIP. As a U.S. citizen he no longer has a Green Card. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.176.250 (talk) 07:47, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
He is now a U.S. citizen. --Art Smart Chart/Heart 02:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I realize that this is supposed to be an objective article and in many places the opinion of the person in question is of little importance. On the point of a person's nationality though, self-identification is quite relevant. If he went so far as to write a book called "American on Purpose" I don't think it would be inaccurate to call him "Scottish-American" or maybe even just American.98.247.192.99 (talk) 22:34, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
I utterly agree with Guv2006. The term Scottish-American would imply that he is of Scottish descent but born in America. The infobox uses the term 'nationality'. To do it based on citizenship makes no sense for three reasons:
1. The USA does not recognize dual citizenship.
2. There is no such thing as Scottish citizenship.
3. Wikipedia notes that citizenship is not the same as nationality.
Referencing the fact he's passed citizenship in no way justifies use of an ambiguous term that is not used in the article. Am changing it.Phunting (talk) 20:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree with your general sentiment, but item 1 on your list is wrong. While it certainly varies from case it's still inaccurate to say that the US does not recognize dual citizenship. In fact the State Department recently changed the way they handle dual citizenship claims. Their response used to be very combative, but it's much easier now in many cases.
Technically people who are becoming naturalized are still required to "renounce" their old citizenship. However, in practice, the State Department is no longer doing anything in the vast majority of situations where a new citizen's "old country" refuses to recognize the US renunciation and continues to consider the person's original citizenship to be in effect. --Dekker451 (talk) 07:19, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I've changed the lead of the article to "Scottish-born, naturalized American". Surely there can be no disagreement with the accuracy of this phrasing? He is now an American citizen, as he states in this show from Feb. 2. Walkersam (talk) 20:13, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I should add that, as he both lives and works in the U.S. and identifies as an American I think the Nationality in the infobox should rightly be changed to 'American' as well, though as this seems to be a contentious point I'll leave it open for debate. Walkersam (talk) 20:16, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I think "Scottish-born, naturalized American" works. I just think the term "Scottish American" implies something different. Incidentally I have both British and US citizenship. The US don't recognize my British passport, and I can't use it in the States. I'm British and I'm American, but British American doesn't exist in the terms implied here. Personally I think as the infobox states 'nationality' it should contain the original nationality, not assumed citizenship, but have no real objection as long as misleading terms aren't used. Phunting (talk) 01:38, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 98.212.43.2, 25 February 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} "...and he doesn't know how to edit a wikipedia page!" Quoted by Craig himself pn his late show dated 2/25/2011.  :)

98.212.43.2 (talk) 06:05, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Not done. While interesting, this bit of trivia really isn't notable for inclusion here. Remember, avoid strict trivia in articles. — Huntster (t @ c) 06:50, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Frozenthorn, 25 February 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

In response to an email read on the show asking if Craig ever went online to his Wikipedia page to add stuff to it, Craig jokingly said "All the time" then admitted he didn't actually know how to add stuff. He went on to suggest putting this information on the page. (The Late Late Show with Craig Ferguson, Feb 24th 2011)


Frozenthorn (talk) 19:52, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

See above section. This is simply trivial, non-encyclopaedic info. — Huntster (t @ c) 19:57, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

pah, he did say to add it. No one wants to have harmless fun anymore. Try smiling every once in awhile. while your rebuttal may dismantle my argument for it, I don't care. Exact quote in case someone has the balls, "and he doesn't know how to add stuff to the wikipedia page"... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.127.225.47 (talk) 08:26, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Haha. Please understand, I think it's awesome that he mentioned the article, etc, but this is intended to be encyclopedic, not full of random trivia. I'm afraid that concept gets lost amongst the idea that this is a website that can be edited. There's a lot that needs to be cleaned up, and stuff that probably needs to be removed from the article, but that doesn't mean more trivia should be added. And please note, I smile constantly whilst watching the Late Late Show! — Huntster (t @ c) 11:37, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Drug Use

While the article mentions he was a recovering alcoholic he also was a drug addict he talks about it all the time on the show. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.38.83.45 (talk) 11:10, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I suppose it's up for debate, but while he has said he did drugs during the 80s and 90s he has also said that he considers himself a recovering alcoholic, but not a drug addict. --Dekker451 (talk) 07:10, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
And of course three weeks later he says "I am an addict!" in reference to the fact that he used to smoke a lot. *rolleyes* Thanks, Craig. --Dekker451 (talk) 23:54, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, you know, he's consistently inconsistent. — Huntster (t @ c) 03:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

The Ferguson Theory?

While the UK section of this article introduces shows Ferguson has been involved in, the first and only mention of this show is "After cancellation of his show The Ferguson Theory, Ferguson moved to Los Angeles in 1994." Can we please have details of this show added by someone who knows? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.254.11.114 (talk) 01:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

statements

didn't he (craig) allege to wiki stating he had a 3rd nipple? was that true at some point or purely him joking about the verity of wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.132.95.32 (talk) 21:06, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

UK television debut

Were The Craig Ferguson Show--referenced in the current article as a Granada Television production--actually broadcast in the UK on 4 March, 1990, it could not possibly be Craig Ferguson's television “debut” as presently attributed. Craig Ferguson's appearance as "Confidence" on the BBC sitcom, [Red Dwarf], in the episode, "[Confidence and Paranoia]," copyright BBC North West 1987 which aired 14 March, 1988[1] obviously predates any "debut" in 1990. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.57.58.52 (talk) 00:36, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

  1. ^ imdb.com
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Craig_Ferguson/Archive_1&oldid=1211059331"