This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oman, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Oman on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OmanWikipedia:WikiProject OmanTemplate:WikiProject OmanOman articles
Isla Fisher is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles
Googling Isla Fisher near death experience will bring much documentation regarding an experience while making Now you See Me. Gathered sufficient press that it deserves mention.
11:30, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
"Upon marriage to British comedian Sacha Baron Cohen (Ali G), she has converted to Judaism" - source?
Latest reports are that she has yet to convert to Judaism. Reuters says: "The groom's Jewish heritage is also a factor [in their delayed marriage], with Fisher yet to convert." She should porbably be removed from the category "converts to Judaism" until it can be verified. The Ali G page still said he was married to her until I fixed it a little while ago. There's obviously a lot of cofusion about all this.--DreamsReign04:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just attempted to fix the obvious vandalism to her page--"She has, unfortunately, pledged to convert to Judaism in order to marry Cohen, who is Jewish.[1]"--but when I attempted to make the edit, the offending word ("unfortunately") wasn't there. It's a mystery...Andrewjnyc18:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Recently the words "and who insisted that she convert to Judaism." were removed. Was there any reason to remove this? --Mushed21:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there was. Because in the Jewish or Christian religion nobody insists or forces anybody to convert. Such things are more peculiar to Islam.
I don't believe that to be a good reason for deleting that statement, that seems quite biased to me. I believe the statement should be added to the article again. Mushed13:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... evidence that they have married already seems like speculation or hearsay to me. Sacha Baron Cohen's article doesn't say that they're married yet. Remember this is adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons: "Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous." Thus there is good reason to delete that statement as it appears to be an unsubstantiated claim. - Olockers
Yes, the claim seems unsubstantiated, and that would be, I believe, a good reason to delete it. But the reason given seemed to me, quite biased and based on a personal opinion, which I think would be the wrong reason to delete it. Eitherway, the article seems fine as it is now. Mushed 13:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Why if he loved HER,couldn't HE convert?...If Wiki is going to bring this up over and over.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.116.55 (talk) 18:26, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In the preface to one of her novels it says, "Isla Fisher was born in 1976, in the old walled city of Muscat in the Sultanate of Oman." Interestingly, it also states she was the last non-Arab born there.
Alrighty, now that she's given birth already, let's get her a new picture. A current one would be good, unless you guys really like the pregnant one. I always thought keeping it current was a good idea.
~ GoldenGoose100 (talk) 02:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Isla is credited in the Spyz movie (for wiki, not IMDB), but I just saw it and that was definitely not her (Was on disc2 of Da Ali G Show Season 1). Only resemblance was red hair and female —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.205.63 (talk) 23:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I notice British-Australian was replaced by Scottish-Australian (which is reasonable as it's true and what she herself has stated) which has now be removed under WP:MOSBIO and replaced with Australian.
WP:MOSBIO states:
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. (Note: There is no consensus on how to define nationality for people from the United Kingdom, which encompasses constituent countries.)
For Isla who has Dual Nationality UK/Aus the question of "when did she become notable?" is significant because whilst Australians may see her notability starting with Paradise Beach or Home and Away, The British May See it Start with her Pantomime/Theatre Work and The Americans with her Film Work.
For the Latter Two that citizenship was clearly UK based and to remove it from the article because a minority consider her minor Australian soap roles in the mid-90's is pure Folly.
It's also important because she defended her British theatre work (when accused of being just "another" Australian taking British acting roles away) by affirming her British nationality in the Media - (I believe it was on an episode of The Wright Stuff in 2000)
Heck if you want to stick dead on WP:MOSBIO her citizenship should be Omani because as the last non-Arab born in Oman thats a reasonable grounds for the start of her notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.218.38 (talk) 14:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the question is what countries she's a citizen of now. If she's a dual citizen of Australia and the U.K., they should both be in the header. However, do we know that she is? The article doesn't say (at the moment). As for Oman, she wasn't Omani when she became notable (i.e. a writer, actress, etc.), and I kind of doubt she's still a citizen of Oman (she may never have been, depending on their laws at the time). All Hallow's (talk) 01:56, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In that case it is America and UK, she and Sasha have two houses (this is cited later in the article) one in LA the other in London. She has no familial ties to Australia as her parents and siblings have consequently moved on to other countries (again cited later in the article). I'm not actually sure whether her Australian citizenship is still valid or whether it only existed whilst her parents were citizens.
Born British Citizen in Oman, British Citizen till Age 6, Dual (Brit-Aus)Citizenship Age 6-21, British Citizen (Possibly Dual with Aus) Age 21-26, Dual Citizenship (Brit-US) Age 26-33.
Whilst making statements that she feels culturally Australian she has also made statements that she considers herself British (and specifically Scottish) on many occasions. Connor 149.254.218.41 (talk) 14:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a source that she's a citizen of the U.S., U.K., etc? If so, you should add it to the article text somewhere with that reference, and then fix the intro sentence to match it. All Hallow's (talk) 23:56, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Source for U.K. is already in the article, She was born to a Scottish Father giving U.K. Citizenship. U.K. Citizenship is not revoked by also taking Australian Citizenship (Unless she ran for political office in Australia) I also cant find a referenceable source that proves she ever took up Australian Citizenship as opposed to being an Australian permanent resident which may mean she is only a U.K. citizen. Since U.S. citizenship requires revocation of her U.K. citizenship (and she still lives in the U.K. - Again already in article) her residence must be through an immigration Visa - Possibly O-1.
Additionally, consider Mel Gibson who had Dual US/Irish nationality and moved to Australia (albeit as a slightly older child 12 instead of 6) adding Australian citizenship. He found notability as an "Australian" actor before returning to the U.S. (Aged 28 - much older than Fisher returning to the U.K.)yet is now exclusively considered an "American" actor. 149.254.218.41 (talk) 13:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The info states her parents are both British, so she doesn't get any automatic Australian citizenship in the first place. Unless/until some evidence arises that she EVER had Australian citizenship, she really isn't Scottish-Australian at all. SaucyWench (talk) 00:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree completely, and some of my research into her background would confirm this. The problem occurs in that despite no evidence of it, there are sources already cited which call her Australian and more of them than those that call her British or Scottish. It was for this reason that I raised the issue of Mel Gibson - there's also the issue of maintenance every Australian who browses in here is going to change it and I'm not able to commit the time to changing them all back, if you want to offer feel free to go ahead..... 149.254.217.42 (talk) 14:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Replying to myself, the matter should be resolved in 2012 or 2013 when Isla's Immigration Records become publicly available. Of course it won't show whether she naturalised at some later age but it will let us know what kind of Visa she i Australia under. 149.254.224.2 (talk) 18:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've edited her nationality and noted immediately afterwards that she was raised in Australia. It's less than ideal in terms of tidy wiki-standard, but I'm hoping it dissuades edit clowns from reverting it for a little while. We shall see.SaucyWench (talk) 15:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, she does seem to consider herself Australian. If you read this interview, she says "I'm definitely attracted to other Australians", implying that she is an Australian as well. After taking part of the countless discussions whether Christian Bale is English or Welsh, the consensus seems to be that if the person self-identifies as something, it is okay to use that. Nymftalk/contr.15:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As noted in the first post she has in other interviews, particularly in the UK declared herself British or Scottish. It seems she considers herself international and will refer to herself in the context depending on the nationality of the reporter/media agency. The interview you quote identifies as Australian only because it is to an Australian reporter for an Australian media agency. Like the first poster I also recall an interview in 1999/2000 when she identified on British TV as British - it may have been The Wright Stuff (don't have a list of panel guests to cite the particular one she was on) or it may also have been her Loose Women appearance in September 1999 (Episode 1.4) it was certainly a discussion about Australian actors/actresses appearing in UK Pantomime/Theatre. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 20:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This edit war is ridiculous. As this is a BLP we have to err on the side of caution. As such, I've removed any mention of nationality from the lede for now. If nationality is to be reintroduced then shortcuts should not be taken - the lede should explain the entire story (namely, born in Oman to Scottish parents, grew up in Oz). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk12:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Chris, whilst I'll stand by your decision for the moment, I disagree that this is an Edit War. Prior to any edits a consensus was reached it's one which is borne out but the presented evidence and has been abided to since the edits were made if anyone chooses to make an edit against that consensus they have been directed to this discussion to present their case. There is no continued reversion by two or more editors but those of us in consensus have reverted back to the consensus position when an edit with no supportable position is made. Earlier in this discussion it was noted that these edits would occur because what the Majority of people *believe* her Nationality to be is different from what her Nationality can be *cited* to be. If as I suspect may happen the Nationality is quickly reinserted by the mistaken belief that she must be Australian, I would not hold any editor who edits back into line with the consensus as at fault. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 19:54, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, A Run-Down Hoping to spark some further discussion/research on the Subject:
Above Chris Cunningham suggests the lead should contain the whole story, as I see it this is against WP:MOSBIO which states "Previous nationalities and/or the country of birth should not be mentioned in the opening sentence unless they are relevant to the subject's notability." WP:MOSBIO also makes clear that it is important to have a nationality in the lead - this then leads to the Question again of what is Isla's nationality? We can cite that Isla has British citizenship because that is a given to any child born of British parents and isn't revoked even if becoming an Australian citizen. Anyone adding Australian nationality to the article would be subject to WP:Burden having to provide a reference to prove that she has (or had) Australian citizenship. Nymf states that because she considers herself Australian she should be recorded as Australian and cites Christian Bale as a comparable case.In fact Christian Bale is not comparable because in his case nationality was being decided between divisions of the UK rather than different countries and fell under WP:NoPftUK which does take into account Christian's preference. And even if Isla's preference was taken into account we have reliable sources for both camps.
Once again we appear to be left without a solution until we work out a new angle of approaching the problem. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 23:56, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If there's doubt, it shouldn't be mentioned in the lead at all. Ethnicity and nationality are fairly unimportant in the first place, and, with a BLP, we err on the side of not including anything we can't be absolutely certain of.—Kww(talk) 02:58, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yep which was why I removed it in my last edit - and it lasted all of an hour before "an australian" reasserted itself - Do you think a hidden comment would prevent editors adding any nationality without seeking consensus first? Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 07:30, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ethnicity does not go in the lead, but nationality is required. Being brought up in Australia and starting her career there make "Australian" the correct nationality, unless she has made a clear statement that she considers herself of Scottish or British nationality, in which case we follow what she says. Yworo (talk) 04:19, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, being brought up in and starting a career do not alone make one a national - gaining nationality can also require citizenship and that is a legal process one that we do not have a source saying that Fisher undertook.
We had a clear statement from Fisher in 1999 she was interviewed about Australian actors working the UK pantomime circuit , she said she was actually British and went on to explain that her parents were British and that she had been raised in Scotland until she was 6.(Loose Women, episode 1.4, September 1999) however we also have sources from the Australian media where she says things like she "feels Australian".
There is reasonable doubt on every aspect of her nationality (she was equally raised in U.K. and Aus before becoming notable, She held U.K. citizenship but it's unknown if she ever held Aus citizenship, She has self identified as both a Brit and an Australian.)
WP:OPENPARA seems to have been changed at some point since this debate began and now prefers the current nationality unless the person is only notable for past events. For Isla, a British citizen permanantly resident in London she is currently British.
Great, the the situation is just like that of Naomi Watts, we know for sure she is British, and have no source that definitively documents a change in citizenship. Thus she should be attributed British nationality and Australian residence, i.e. as a British ex-patriate working there. Yworo (talk) 11:18, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's no mandate to include anything dubious in any article, much less a living person's biography. Ethnicity and nationality are relatively trivial concerns, and need not be included if there's any controversy.—Kww(talk) 11:39, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's not really any doubt that she is a British citizen, she was born to British parents and there are no sources that state that her British citizenship was ever terminated. She has also said she is British so we are not going against the subject's self-identification. We might be able to narrow it to Scottish with proper sourcing. Her calling herself "Australian" with no sources to back up her citizenship isn't going to fly. Most Brits who move to Australia don't become citizens simply because they don't need to do so to become permanent residents. However, born to British parents and no sources to contradict this is not "dubious" in any way. We can't know if any living subject has changed their citizenship without sources, but we don't leave the nationality because of any doubt that they retained their birth citizenship! We assume they kept it unless sources contradict that. A British subject is a British citzien until the subject themselves or the British government say they have renounced it and this is reported in the media. So this situation is clearly that there is no reason to doubt her British citizenship, and she may have other citizenship which can be added if and only if we have a reliable source to support them. Yworo (talk) 01:49, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you read the above thread you'll see that we never did have objection to that reasoning, and indeed we maintained that for a long time - the problem was that it was being changed frequently back to "Australian" by new editors/anonymous I.P.s and took up the appearance of a slow burning edit war (despite the talk page having consensus for Scottish/British) and hence it was the admin suggestion of Thumperward to be removed to prevent this. When it continued further (though at a lesser rate) "nothing" was replaced with a comment asking anyone wishing to change to get consensus to do so (which has now made such changes infrequent). Like Kww I don't see that it's essential to have it in the lead and to me the constant changing when it is in the lead is more disruptive to the encyclopaedia than the article continuing without it. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 17:17, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha. I have to say, the same thing occurs on other article, notably Naomi Watts, and such edit warring is typically stopped by semi-protection and a few blocks if registered users engage in it. I don't see that leaving it out is preferable to a period of semi-protection if the edit warring resume. We've basically given in to the edit warriors by leaving it off. On top of that, I see that there is a consensus for British. I do not see that there is a stronger consensus for leaving it off. Yworo (talk) 18:28, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have implemented the admitted consensus for "British". Changes should be reverted, edit warring reported, and semi-protection requested as necessary. There is no need to give in to the vandals. Yworo (talk) 07:16, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What consensus is there that describing her as "British" is the best course of action? I would argue that leaving it out completely is the best course of action. It's of trivial importance, and there's really no strong argument for saying anything at all about it.—Kww(talk) 02:31, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I'd mention here that I have solved this problem fairly equitably by side-stepping the whole issue. Rather than trying to decide on a nationality, I've instead merely implied two nationalities by stating two facts we all seem to agree on: "She was born to British parents and raised in Australia". This should keep all the random nationalistic editors happy enough to cease adding "she is Australian" or "she is British" to the lead section. InternetMeme (talk) 18:09, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would love to see the lead changed to say Australian. And all we need is a source that states that she was indeed granted Australian citizenship, whether as a child or an adult doesn't matter. None of the regular editors can find an online source, and a number of them are quite experienced editors and know how to search. Please pop out to your library and see what you can find. I'm American, not a Brit, and don't really care which she really was just so long as we have a source to support it. Yworo (talk) 05:52, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not from Oz, but my advice would be to feel free to change it to Aus-British (or British-Aus?) if you like. Having skimmed thorough some of the discussions here I had to chuckle just a little. These mind-numbingly tedious debates over 'nationality' or 'citizenship' are so typical of wikipedia. A lot of editors have a very anal-retentive approach to these matters. The laws of citizenship and/or nationality will vary across the different countries. Some will grant citizenship if you are born in their country, irrespective of the circumstances. Others do not. In the case of Fisher, I've not followed her career too closely, although I have seen a number of interviews with her, such as when she makes appearances on chat shows such as Letterman. I've always got the impression that she was an Ozzie, from listening to her talk and the comments she makes. Of course, as has been pointed out above by another editor, it is possible to reside permanently in Oz and yet not be a full citizen. Even if this is the case with Fisher, I'd imagine that she would be entitled to full Oz citizenship if she desired. As has also been mentioned above, she would automatically be a British citizen because her parents are. She is also an actor. However does that then make her a 'British actor'? I'd question that. It seems that she spent her formative years in Oz, and that is obviously the place where she started her acting career. That should be enough to qualify here as an Oz actor, along with the evidence that she seems to identify herself as an Ozzie, even if we don't know for sure her citizenship status. I'd change it back to reflect the wider reality. So maybe Scottish-Aus, or British-Aus, or perhaps an Omani born British-Oz actor!! Theodore D (talk) 00:28, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
She's not Australian. That's the whole point. She's a British actor who established her career in Australia. End of. It is very unlikely she ever got citizenship - it is just not the done thing. Brits who move to Australia simply don't bother getting citizenship because there is no need in a country which "belongs" to your own homeland anyway. British permanent residents pretty much have ALL the rights citizens have. Most of them think the only difference is the colour of their passport. :) It's ridiculous that people keep assuming she must have citizenship just based on her having lived there for a while, or based on her accent, or based on the fact someone else mistakenly called her an Aussie. Isla is a British actor who lived in Australia while growing up and has now chosen to make the UK her home. She has said many thíngs to various different media (including clearly stating that she is Scottish), but her current home is evidence for her feeling British. She has lived more of her life in the UK and is raising her family there. Why are people intent on calling her Australian? SaucyWench (talk) 21:29, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are no sources that suggest that her literary works are notable. If you can provide a link to a reliable source that establishes her as a notable author, then go ahead and add that occupation to the lead. As it stands, she is an actress who has attempted to become a respected author and not yet succeeded.
Also, I have no real interest in what her nationality is, but we need to put something at the start of the article. Australian, Scottish, or Omanian, I don't care, but please put something there.
"There are no sources that suggest that her literary works are notable." This misses the whole point notability is not inherited, just because someone is notable and an Author does not mean that all or even any their works have to be notable in themselves. In the case of Isla fisher however, there are many sources discussing the significance of her writing (both novels and screenplays), The Significance of her being a chick-lit author in relation to roles she has played (particularly Definitely Maybe and Confessions of a Shopaholic), and sources that define her as an author or writer. I've added two to the article already but can list many more for example:
Pringle, Gill (September 28, 2007). "Hot Bod is keeping mum". The Independent. - "Having authored two best-selling romance paperbacks, Bewitched and Seduced By Fame, Fisher herself has thus far failed to make it up the aisle despite the fact that her fiance is a devout Jew."
Harry, Ethan (July 17, 2005). "Interrogation Isla Fisher". Sunday Mirror. - "What would you be doing if you weren't acting? IF: If I wasn't acting, I'd probably be writing Chick Lit. I wrote some books for 12-year-old girls back when I was 18."
Malins, Sue (July 11, 1996). "Soap hunks are too pretty for me; INTERVIEW: Isla Fisher". The Mirror. - "Off set, Scots-born Isla - she emigrated to Australia with her family when she was six - has better things to do with her time. Like writing novels. Her first, Seduced By Fame, has just been published. It's a story of glamour and glitz, romance and heartbreak in a fictional TV soap. But it's not, Isla insists, based on anything to do with Home And Away. [...]Her second novel, Bewitched, is due out in September."
"West's best for Fisher". Sunday Mirror. February 27, 2011. - "Actress and author Isla Fisher studied Clint Eastwood's roles in Western films to help learn her accent for new animated movie Rango."
Fisher, Isla (September 10, 2011). "SOAP SURVIVOR: Isla Fisher". Daily Mail. - "Wordplay But that's not all the precocious star got up to. When she was 18, Isla wrote a couple of 'trashy chick lit' novels (her words) with the aid of her novelist mother: 'I had always wanted to be a writer, but then I realised I liked to play dress-up, too.' Both books - Bewitched and Seduced By Fame - are still available online.[..]She's smart, too, with hopes to move into scriptwriting and production, 'making sure I have a little bit more power and control over my career'."
Corcoran, Monica (February 12, 2009). "'Confessions of a Shopaholic': Star says she's not a big spender despite role". Charleston Daily Mail. - "Fisher may not be much of a shopper, but she understands the appeal of chick lit. At 17, she wrote two bestselling novels - "Bewitched" and "Seduced by Fame." At that time, she was successful as a young soap star in Perth, Australia."
Mottram, James (Saturday 10 November 2012). "Isla Fisher: Confessions of a seriously funny girl". The Independent. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) - "Then there's her love of writing; in the past she's published two "trashy chick-lit" novels – including Seduced by Fame, about a waitress who wins a role in a soap opera. She wants to do more, has even knocked out two scripts, "but it's hard, with having a family and trying to keep my acting career ticking along". No wonder Baron Cohen is bonkers over this lady."
Young, Fiona (June 21, 2009). "Bruno gets Isla playing for laughs". Sunday Mail (Glasgow, Scotland). - "Isla, who wrote bestselling books Bewitched and Seduced by Fame when she was just 18, is now busy penning her own comedy scripts.."
Neumaier, Joe (Wednesday, July 20, 2005). "5 Minutes With... Isla Fisher". New York Daily News. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) - "You've published two books [the novels "Seduced by Fame" and "Bewitched"]. Most people in Hollywood haven't even read two books. Do you need to dumb it down to be successful? I think it's always an act to seem accessible to people. But I can't wait to get back and do more writing."
I've added tags to your references, they mean the following:
(TABLOID): These are unreliable sources. The barrier for entry for these publications is very low; they frequently interview non-notable people and give them irrelevant titles.
(ACTRESS): This is a reliable publication, but it is interviewing her due to her fame as an actress, and not due to fame as an author. It's about her being an actress with a side note about her having written a couple of books. In the same way, many interviews mention Harrison Ford having been a carpenter; but the interview would have never happened if he hadn't been a famous actor.
If you want to add "author" to Isla Fisher's lead, please first add "carpenter" to Harrison Ford's lead.
I think you've misunderstood what I'm saying. I've never denied that she has written some books; rather, I'm saying that she hasn't written any notable books. I'e': I have no problem with a description of her book writing efforts in the body of the article, I'm just saying that it's not appropriate to describe her as an author in the lead sentence. If we were to be honest, we might start the article by saying "Isla Fisher is an Australian actress who has attempted to leverage her fame in bid to gain a reputation as an author" InternetMeme (talk) 12:14, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Which is an irrelevant point, as far as policy is concerned it doesn't matter whether the books are notable in themselves as notability is not inherited (and notability doesn't apply to article content anyway). We have plenty of articles of Authors who are notable but have written books that are not; Vernon Lee for instance. What matters is what do reliable sources say about Isla Fisher in regard to her writing? On that score it's clear they consider her an author so we should say that she is considered to be an author. As for your claim that "Isla Fisher is an Australian actress who has attempted to leverage her fame in bid to gain a reputation as an author" it doesn't fit with facts as shown by the sources on the basis that she wasn't famous when she wrote the books and she saw writing as a primary occupation when writing them. It only became a secondary career when her acting career subsequently took off. There's also the point that again you seem to want to assert some nationality to Fisher despite this also being unclear in sources. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 18:30, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're not comprehending the logic here. I'm not saying that writing a non-notable book renders someone exempt from being considered an author (as would be the case with Vernon Lee). I'm saying that failing to write any notable books renders someone exempt.
Isla Fisher hasn't written any notable books. For another example, if an interview with her happened to mention that she baked a cake, would you then want to start the article with "Isla Fisher is an Australian actress and chef"? No, of course not. She is not a notable author, and therefore it's not relevant to the introductory paragraph.
Actually I am comprehending your Logic, I just choose to reject it and substitute it with Wikipedia policy. On your talkpage you state "The fact that neither of her books have Wikipedia articles gives a hint as to their notability." none of Vernon Lee's books have Wikipedia articles, and the article does not discuss any of her works as being notable it purely discusses her personal notability making minor mention to particular works - but by your logic at least some of her works are individually notable despite failing the test of notability you set up for Isla Fisher and Wikipedia's General notability guidlines. Wikipedia policy is much clearer, we state whatever the reliable sources state, and in this case despite your logic (or opinion) they claim Fisher is either an author or writer (take you pick) so e state that. Seemples Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 21:53, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia policy is not quite that simple. We don't just state what articles state; we do it within the confines of notability. If her merit as an author on its own is not great enough to warrant an article about her, then it's not great enough to mention in the lead.
There are hundreds of people who have published only two non-notable books, and they don't have Wikipedia articles. That is the standard for mentioning an occupation in the lead section.
Also, off-topic: We need to state a nationality. Is she Scottish or Australian? I really don't know, but we have to state something. Should we put "of uncertain nationality"?
I don't think I've explained it very well, so I'll try a different way: The criteria for listing occupations at the start are the same as the criteria for making an article for someone at all.
So, if some guy just writes a couple of obscure books, then he doesn't get a Wikipedia article. And if some actress writes a couple of obscure books, then she doesn't get listed as an author in the lead section (the only reason anyone has heard of these books is because they were written by a famous actress).
Stating that she's an 'author' later in the body of the article is fine though, just like listing that she likes baking cakes.
Judging by your comments I feel you don't understand our notability policy. In short it says are there enough sources discussing the person that they deserve an article. Since there are many sources discussing her writing, and a reasonable number of those from before she was "famous". Then it would still be possible to write a notable article on her as an Author whether or not she had become a famous actress. As for your point on obscure books, feel free to go through our Author categories because it's easy to find lots of authors who have written a few non-notable books but who are still notable authors because of the amount of material written about them as authors despite the obscurity of their actual works. Additionally, we don't need to add anything that isn't clear in sources and Fisher's nationality is not clear. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 06:25, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If her nationality is unclear, then we should put that. Where a person comes from and when they were born are fundemental pieces of data, and they should either be included, or an explanation should be given explaing why they're not included.
In regards to her regard as an author: All the articles you cite are about her acting, with a passing note about her writing. If you can find an article that is about one of her books, and not merely a side-note in an article about her acting, then we can put "author" at the start of the article.
So you'll have a link to policy or guideline that advises us to put in that her nationality is unclear? We do explain in the body of the text why it's complicated but there's no need to mention why we are excluding it beyond its complexity.
Did you actually read these full articles I've pointed you to? If not you might find that Sue Malins article is exactly about that discussing the protagonist of "Seduced by fame" and why it's not based on Fisher's personal experience of working on Home and Away. The James Mottram article is another one primarily about writing as well though concentrating on how she wants to expand into screenwriting from novels. When someone is notable for multiple things, each of those things does not exist in a vacuum so you're not going to find many if any articles that talk about their writing/music/art/whatever without comparing it with their acting/sport/politics.Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 13:48, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, the first thing is just Encyclopedias 101. Have you read many standard Encyclopedia articles (Britannica and the like)? The four basic questions are "who?", "what?", "when?", and "where?". So you list someone's name, their occupation, their birthdate, and their nationality. I think this is so fundamental to all encyclopedias that it is taken for granted. Check any Encyclopedia Britannica biographical article if you don't believe me.
Second, all of the references you provided are articles that were written because she's an actress, that happened to mention that she wrote a couple of books. What we need is an article that was written because she's an author (and it will likely mention that she happens to be an actress too). Or, to put it another way: None of the articles you listed would have been written if she weren't an actress.
This is just getting silly - you clearly haven't produced any policy or sourcing (and clearly still haven't read the sources that I've given) that supports your position. In the meantime per policy the existing WP:CONSENSUS should be restored until you can get support for your position. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 18:05, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, to me it's your position that's silly: You want to remove fundamental information from Wikipedia, and you want to add trivial information. That kind of thing is half the reason Wikipedia is considered by many to be a second-rate encyclopedia.
I have read all of your quotes, and as far as I can tell, they're all from articles interviewing her for being an actress, and none of them would have been written were it not for her status as an actress. You still haven't pointed out one that was written on the basis of her acclaim as an author.
And in regards to consensus, there is certainly no consensus about hiding her nationality. Just in the last week alone I've seen a random user try to add the information, and another user revert it.
I don't "want to remove fundamental information from Wikipedia" we don't have that information in order to put it in and we're not going to engage in original research because any editor feels it's fundamental.
Yes, I've quoted sections from articles, but I'm not going to Copyvio and post them all - the full text is out there if you want to get it. and here's a reality check - Fisher is an actress, who wrote a book about an actress, so acting is going to be a pretty big part of that interview - it's quite clear from the quote that the Malins interview is about comparing the character in the book with the author but yes as I say acting is a big theme in her writing work. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 20:03, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As for your point on consensus - You are the only editor who has tried to add a nationality it in the last week. In fact the last time any editor tried to change the nationality in the lead was the 10th of October. Like you they were advised that consensus already existed here after many heated debates in the past and that if they have further sources that would clarify the situation they should bring them here to the talk page. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 23:24, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the Manual of Style article saying that we should state in the opening paragraph where she's from: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies. I honestly thought this was just well-known encyclopedic practice: That's why I didn't hunt down the relevant MOS section sooner. I'll leave it up to you to decide where she's from and add the relevant information.
Did you miss the box at the top that says " This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions." in the Debates above we're all well aware of that guideline, but this is a exception as it is not clear if she is considered an " Omani Born,{ British/Scottish/Australian} Actress and Author" or "{Omani/British/Scottish), Australian raised Actress and Author" or just "{Omani/British/Scottish/Australian} Actress and Author "(to be deleted as applicable). sources conflict and there is no clear primary sources that clarify the issue raised by the secondaries; to make an independent choice is engaging in original research - so we leave it out until we can clarify the issue. Wikipedia has no time limits to completion so it will be done when it can be done . Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 15:01, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've come up with a sentence that solves the problem: "Born in Oman to British parents and raised in Australia". Scotland is part of Britain, of course. InternetMeme (talk) 15:26, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've finally found the article you were referring to, and not only is it from an unreliable source (a notorious tabloid, the Daily Mirror), but it was also written because she is an actress, and it would never have been written if she wasn't an actress. Of course it mentions that she wrote a book, just like many articles about Harrison Ford mention the fact that he was once a carpenter.
Now, do yo think that article would have been written if he wasn't a famous actor? Of course not. And the article for Harrison Ford doesn't say "Harrison Ford is an American actor and carpenter. InternetMeme (talk) 15:52, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hang on, we need to clarify something:
She was born in Oman.
Her parents are British (which includes Scotland).
She was raised in Australia.
Are these all correct? The only point of contention that I can see is that it's not really relevant that she was born in Oman, in which case we can put "she was born to British parents and raised in Australia".
Okay, I've established that her parents are definitely British, and also that she was definitely raised in Australia, which is also where she first rose to fame (I can't find any articles mentioning her before she lived in Australia: That's where her fame arose). So I'm going to add that she was born to British parents and raised in Australia. That's pretty uncontroversial. InternetMeme (talk) 17:34, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are you still there? I'd kinda like to know what you think. I've tried to come up with the best compromise I can, by sticking to information that you've given me (British parents, raised in Australia).
Just so you know my motvation here, the first think you need to know is that a large number of readers come to Wikipedia to find out very simple things about people or other things, like what something is, where it's from, what it does, etc'. The lead section is there for people who are in a hurry to get a basic overview and learn the basic facts; and it's very useful for them to be able to find everything they need to know without delving into the lower sections of an article. So for the sake of people who watch a movie, and think to themselves "This Isla Fisher is pretty good. I wonder where she's from?", they can quickly learn in a glance what they want to know, and Wikipedia has served them well. If the information's not there, they have to scroll down and read through a couple of paragraphs, and that's wasted time, especially if it takes them 30 extra seconds, and there's 1,000 people that day who came here to learn where she's from. That means we've just wasted eight man-hours by not having the basic information in the lead section.
This problem is exacerbated on mobile devices, on which only the lead section loads initially, and readers have to scroll to the Contents section, click a section, load it, and then scan through looking for what they want to know. I'm all about avoiding inconvenience, and trying to get people the information they want as soon as possible, and eliminating clutter so it's easy to find.
I was asked to have a look at the issues raised here and see if I can help to resolve this dispute. Can I check if the following is an adequate summary of the points of contention?
How to describe Fisher's nationality:
Whether to use an adjective ("Australian");
Whether to describe Fisher's parents as British or Scottish.
Whether to include the word "author" amongst Fisher's occupations.
I would argue that #1a is settled anyway, as we're strongly encouraged not to use adjectives like that to express potentially ambiguous nationalities. For #1b, I don't see that a single clause in the lead along with lines of "born in Oman to Xish parents and raised in Australia" hurts much. Being notable in Australian television is not in itself an indication of where one was raised: Norman Wisdom is notable in Albanian cinema, for instance. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:57, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In reality I would Agree with your analysis of #1a but while its still the subject of insertions/changes it's going to be a continually recycled point for further discussion ("Matters arising from last meeting" at the start of a set of minutes for want of a better example)
For part #1b I think it is worth discussion, elsewhere in BLP and MOS issues we're told not to give specific details such as nationalities or names of relatives in areas where that relevance can't be fully discussed like the lead or in nav or infoboxes - unless they are individually notable (hence we have a number of children in the Infobox instead of their names), and "raised in Australia" is contentious in the same way that part #1a is - according to the article text Fisher started to appear on Australian television when she was 9 - Can she have been considered raised in Australia at that time when she had spent 6 years in Scotland and only 2-3 in Australia? Even by the time she appeared on Bay City, Paradise Beach, and Home and Away it's only a few years difference between time raised in Scotland and time raised in Australia; so should it be "Raised in Australia" or "Raised in Scotland and Australia"? Generally this is something better covered in the article text (which it already is) than placed in the lead where it isn't necessarily clear. On the Norman Wisdom point, The "where" in the lead is there to define the context of the article and of the subject's notability (or the start of their notability) it doesn't follow that that has to be a nationality. If someone whose nationality isn't clear becomes notable for something that is notable because it specifically happened in a specific country - then that's probably more important in defining their notability than working out what their nationality is, and that's possibly the case here. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 21:27, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see that it helps much, either. Ancestry is generally a minor characteristic, and I would argue that in these cases where it is ambiguous it drops into the level of trivia. If her ethnicity and nationality are of such little import that we can't come to a consensus as to what they are, then they aren't worth mentioning.—Kww(talk) 04:55, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's been quite a bit of discussion about this. I've kept on the safe side, and rather than describe her nationality, I've just stated the facts: Her parents are British, and she was raised in Australia. The general view is that the whole Omanian thing is not relevant enough to mention in the lead. InternetMeme (talk) 15:30, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nationality in the lead sentence should generally be a single word. It should be the citizenship which the subject held and most identified with at the time they became notable. It should be verifiable that they actually acquired this citizenship if they were not born in the country in which they were residing. We know she is a British citizen. We know she was brought up in Australia. Do we know whether she acquired Australian citizenship? Many British do not, since they are legally able to take up permanent residence in Australia without doing so. If we have verifiable evidence of Australian citizenship, then we would use Australian, if we don't, she certainly retains her British citizenship and that could be used. Accidents of place of birth or parentage don't get added in a hyphenated mess in the lead sentence, they go in the body of the article. If there is unending disagreement about following the intent of WP:OPENPARA, then we simply leave the nationality out entirely in the lead sentence. Yworo (talk) 21:11, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the statements in edit summaries referring to a "consensus" to include statements about her ethnicity in the lead are overstated. It isn't important. Nothing about the location of her birth or the nationality of her parents is relevant to her notability, and the statements attempting to include them are just a backdoor approach to discuss her ethnicity in the lead. Since no one can come to a consensus as to what her nationality is, we just shouldn't mention it in the lead. At all.—Kww(talk) 21:30, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yet with the sentence inserted we've seen far less attempts to insert a specific nationality, and while there is a version that holds a consensus through editing exists and it's not overstated to claim that it does and that changes to consensus through editing that are challenged or are likely to be challenged should be discussed first. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 22:24, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are certain fundamental aspects of all things that should always be mentioned in the lead section of an encyclopedia. The general list (from memory) comprises "Who, what, when, where, why". In the same way that it would be amateurish to omit someone's name from the lead section, it would also be misguided to leave out where' they're from. If someone's nationality is unknown, that in itself is notable, and should be mentioned in the lead.
Another more practical reason to include these funamental data in the lead is that a large proportion of users come to a biographical page in order to find out how old a person is, what their full name is, what they do, and where they're from (largely due to these being such fundamental attributes). If this information is presented at the start, this large proportion of users will get the desired information faster, without having to wade through paragraphs of obscure information.
I once read an article (I wish I could find it) that suggested that around 80% of users come to an article merely to find very basic information such as the things I listed above.
I've reverted the back to the first version before recent attempt to re-add "Australian" in the lead which is unsourced (my edit summary went AWOL for some reason, and I couldn't get a blank edit with a corrected summary to stay either). As always I'm not fussed whether we go for no mention per KWW or for a full summary per Chris Cunningham as long as any changes are discussed here and reliably sourced. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 06:34, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, sorry about that. I was just going through my contribution history, and decided to see how this page was looking, and then noticed that the beginning of her acting career was covered twice in the lead, so I removed one of the descriptions. I'd half forgotten the history of our discussions here, and didn't really think about it enough.
My position is kinda similar to your in that I'm not too fussed about what we say about her nationality, provided we say something; we can say she's from Swaziland for all I care. And if her nationality is undetermined, then we should specify as much. Something like "Isla Fisher is an actress. Her nationality is currently unclear (see "Personal life" section for details).
The main point is that "nationality" is one of the four most fundamental attributes a person has, and for the sake of utility (in the service of the large number of casual users who come to this page to specifically to learn her nationality), we must cover it in the lead. If you believe her nationality is currently undetermined (and you may well be correct, I have no debate there), then this itself must be mentioned in the lead, as I described at the end of my previous paragraph.
I disagree that nationality is a fundamental characteristic worthy of mention in the lead. The location of a person's activities is important, but not their ethnicity, place of birth, or ethnicity of her parents. That she began her career is Australian television is of some importance. Her ethnicity, even if inserted in disguised statements, is not.—Kww(talk) 23:44, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This point of view rather contradicts thousands of years of worldwide cultural tradition, up to and including the inordinate number of users coming here and attempting to add her nationality to the article. InternetMeme (talk) 14:38, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is, however, the reason that we don't put ethnicities in leads. The "where" of the person's activities is important, the "where" of the person's birth is not.—Kww(talk) 14:41, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Whoah, that's nothing close to being related to what I'm talking about. You're opening up a whole new different can of worms there, and I certainly don't want to get into a debate about specifying ethnicity. InternetMeme (talk) 06:04, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's the exact same can. That's why are being included, instead of just specifying the "where" of Australian television.—Kww(talk) 07:21, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They're very different things: One is a genetic effect, the other is just a place. Also, I don't at all endorse the idea of including the birthplace and nationality of the parents. Neither do I endorse including the times of their births. That's not my idea at all. None of this stuff is related to what I'm talking about. InternetMeme (talk) 09:20, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I feel I should clarify what it is that I'm talking about. Seeing all of these complicated and controversial specifications above being presented as similarly relevant, I want to list the four very fundamental descriptors that apply to every object that exists:
Who?
What?
When?
Where?
These descriptors are the most fundamental things there are, and should be addressed in the lead. In fact, if you were to describe the fundemental purpose of an encyclopedia, it is to answer these questions; that's why people read encyclopedias. If one or more of those attributes is unknown, that in itself is notable, and should be addressed.
I haven't disagreed. However, a "nationality" derived from the ethnicity of the parents that has had no impact on the location of a person's career is not an answer to "where".—Kww(talk) 16:15, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, I think I see what you're getting at. I agree with what you're saying there at any rate. I'd be happy if you figured out what to put to answer the question of "where" (and if you conclude that it is unknowable, then indicate that instead, such as "Her nationality is unclear, as she hasn't mentioned it in interviews"). Just as long as there's something : )
Incidentally, although I agree with you about the illogic of deriving nationality from parental ethnicity, I do rather think that that is usually considered to be the default position, i'e', most people tend to personally identify with their parents' nationality (and I guess many users would assume this is the case for the subject of this article).
I re-read the lead, and I really don't see why we need to mention that she was born in Oman, and I don't really know if it's relevant that her parents were Scottish either. Is there any reason for those being noted? InternetMeme (talk) 11:26, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to rehash all the discussion that appears above but on both of your points. Nationality in this case is not being derived from the parent's ethnicity, nationality is being derived from parent's citizenship which is how UK nationality is acquired by default for British nationals. There is no need to mention Oman as no Omani citizenship or nationality was conferred by this fact, citizenship may or may not have been acquired in Australia but we have no reliable sources showing it was, and even if it was it would not have removed the pre-existing British citizenship/nationality. It is original research to make a definitive statement like "Fisher's nationality is unclear" - in the case we agree it's unclear it would be better to have nothing per kww (possibly a hidden comment as we had before), or per Chris Cunningham lay out the two possible nationalities in a detailed but non-definitive manner. If instead we agree that a specific nationality is better per Yworo, we could maintain that consensus instead. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 14:35, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that point of view is conducive to a thorough and informative encyclopedia. Or, to put it another way, the lead section you describe would fail maybe one-third of users informational desires, or at least waste their time. I think that's unnaceptable. InternetMeme (talk) 00:02, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Which point of view? I don't give preference to a particular point of view but lay out the three potential points of view that can be considered (no mention, non-definitive mention, definitive mention) the only view I reject is that it is somehow acceptable to make a statement that isn't found in any source. I also think you're over-egging the pudding in implying that of the apparent 19,000 people who visited this page yesterday over 6,000 came just looking for Fisher's nationality and would find their time wasted by having to either read the early life section, or by seeing a non definitive outlay of fisher's potential nationalities. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 07:24, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I said nothing about people viewing the article just looking for her nationality. I'm talking about a large percentage of people who want to know nothing more than any combination of "who", "what", "when", and "where". So of that proportion, a reasonable number would be interested in a data set that includes her nationality. Of a percentage of all viewers, the number that are soley interested in lead section information that includes nationality would certainly be over 20%, or 3,800 people. If each of these people has to take an extra 15 seconds to find her nationality (10 seconds scanning the lead in vain puzzlement wondering why it doesn't mention her nationality, and another five locating the "Personal life" section and reading it there), then we end up wasting 3,800 seconds of people's time. That's 15.8 hours, which is enough time to earn 270$ at the average wage of 17$ per hour. That's 70,000$ per year. "Who", "what", "when", "where". Answering those questions is the basis of our job here, and it saves tens of thousands of dollars worth of time if we do it pertinently. InternetMeme (talk) 15:59, 27 May 2013 (UTC
O.K lets disentangle what you just said - you said you're not talking about people looking just for the nationality then give a whole load of meaningless statistics based on the same number of people searching the lead for exactly that. Presumably you have a link to statistics to back these claims up? As Kww has already said if nationality is unclear then the Where is that for her career which we give in the lead and that shouldn't be a problem - what we shouldn't be telling them is that we personally find it unclear; that doesn't mean that it isn't perfectly clear to the subject or to the reader who can make their own mind up. Going over your statistics they don't add up- it takes less than a second for most readers to skim the lead for the information they want - 10 seconds would be a detailed read of the paragraph. It would take at most another second for their eyes to jump to the "Early life" section at the bottom of the screen. If as you say they are not only here for nationality then that 10 seconds won't be wasted and can't fit into your equation. At most you're talking 1-2 seconds wasted which would still be wasted if you add a statement like "Fisher's nationality is unclear". Stuart.Jamieson (talk)
Okay, either you're trying to be offensive or you have very poor written comprehension skills. Either way, there seems to be little point in continuing this debate with you. I will point out though that people don't want to know her career's nationality, they want to know her nationality. InternetMeme (talk) 02:01, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on the content not the contributor. We have guidelines as to what should be in the lead an it doesn't have to be nationality. it just has to establish the context of the subject's notability "The country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable." so the context is that Fisher was (at minimum) permanently resident in Australia when she became notable (her career started) - So we state that, because we can establish that in regard to sources and it establishes article context. What we don't do is add statements that can't be found in sources about nationality simply through personal preference or a sense that we're not serving our readers properly by establishing context in another manner. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 05:58, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey buddy, you started the flame war, so maybe you should have a read of that article yourself (once you've finished disentangling my meaningless statistics). Anyway, back to the topic, what you're saying there seems sensible enough, so how about we say she's Australian? I mean, let's just go with whatever the most reputable source says. I have no problem with getting rid of the whole Omani/Scottish thing (and it was never my idea in the first place). InternetMeme (talk) 07:19, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Attacking the statistics which were the basis for the change you want to made is not the same as attacking someone's "written comprehension skills" and don't even pretend they're comparable. Once again you're suggesting applying a nationality (Australian) , which is misleading the reader as we an't say that with certaintiy, doing so clearly creates a worse situation than wasting a second or two of the reader's time. As for sources both are equally reputable, as both are direct quotes from Fisher herself to different Media organisations one in Australia (Australian) and one in Britain (British/Scottish). The Omani thing was Chris Cunningham originally but it was suggested as a compromise to prevent further debates of this type -"If nationality is to be reintroduced then shortcuts should not be taken - the lede should explain the entire story (namely, born in Oman to Scottish parents, grew up in Oz)." and for long enough the compromise has been that we don't mention a specific nationality either by complete omission or by entire story. If you want to change that I would suggest that starting an RfC would be the best route because I don't think you're going to change any of the other editor's position to get consensus through your continual insistence about "Who" "What" "Where" and "When". Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 09:21, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're being provocative just to get a reaction, so I'm not going to discuss that any more. Anyway, the statistics are sound: If her nationality wasn't written in the lead, it would indeed take ten seconds to search for a reference to it, due to a reader's reasonable expectation that it would surely be mentioned there somewhere. First they'd have to read the whole thing through trying to locate it, and next they'd likely re-read the first sentence on the assumption that they must have missed it on the first read-through. To put it another way, it is an "O(n)" search. It's important to understand the amount of people's time that could potentially be wasted in order to realize the importance of categorizing information hierarchically. InternetMeme (talk) 12:07, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Policies and References - the two key things Wikipedia is based on - not your own research into what people's expectations are and how long it takes them to read the lead (people scan much faster than you are giving them credit for). Back your position with policy or show a reference that supports the material you want to add, and again I suggest a formal RfC if you want to get consensus for a change that is supported by neither. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 12:32, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That kind of thinking is destroying Wikipedia: Adhering to rules to an absurd degree without even a cursory thought as to what makes a good and useful encyclopedia. InternetMeme (talk) 18:24, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
She spent most of her life growing up, and established her acting career in Australia, and her early Movie roles are as Australians. Certainly in Australia, she is seen as an Australian. She would be an Australian permanent resident, if she isn't an Australian citizen. Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:20, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's been a couple of attempts to replace the infobox picture with a newer one, which I think isn't as representative of the subject (if shown it outwith the context of WP, I'm not sure I'd recognize it was Fisher.) The IP requesting addition doesn't seem to want to discuss it but I'm willing to seek wider input as to what other editors think... Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 20:44, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the original 2009 Golden Globes picture of her better represents what she looks like on-screen. The newer picture is still decent though, just not as good. InternetMeme (talk) 06:17, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In technical photographic terms, I'd agree it's a decent headshot. But in terms of representing the subject it doesn't - not even in terms of what she looks like on/off screen but in the sense that anyone pictured in the "what were they doing" section of a gossip magazine probably isn't representative of how the subject looks outside the particular second the shutter was pressed. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 13:30, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've reinserted the photograph of Fisher in 2012 lower in the article. I'm not sure how one can't recognize Fisher in that photograph, if smiling and being happy isn't "representative" enough, not sure what is. Anyway, if the majority of people don't feel it's lead, that's fine. I do think it should be used though, especially in light of the above two "decent" words. Personally I think it's superior to the lead, but I ain't gonna fight for it. :P – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies18:48, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That seems like a good idea. It's certainly good enough to be placed later in the article. In answer to you puzzlement: It is a glamour shot, with makeup, lighting, etc' used to manipulate her overall countenance. InternetMeme (talk) 04:57, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That said, there's a better shot of her from Cannes last week that's been uploaded at commons a few days ago - which would potentially be a featured image candidate if not for the low resolution. I'd rather go with that in the Lead and then this debate would have to be over whether the 2009 or 2012 should appear later (I don't think there's call for three). I appreciate you added the uncropped original Keraunoscopia, but I don't see it as a photograph of her "smiling and being happy" because her eyes don't match the smile - its as though she's been shocked or surprised by something. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 05:30, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's actually not a glamour shot—see glamour photography and the lead image for Julie Delpy for examples of glamour shots: controlled environment, controlled lighting, controlled pose. Red carpet photography is anything but glamorous and lighting conditions are usually atrocious (a dozen flashes from any which way), etc etc, and she's wearing make-up like any female celebrity would when stepping outside in front of the public. I would argue the 2012 image is precisely the same as the 2009 and 2013 images in terms of "manipulat[ing] her overall countenance". But I think that's beside the point. You guys have a feel for what's best for the article and I submit myself to your decisions—and it's nice to run into editors who are actually pleasant! :P —though my only issue with the 2013 image is that distracting hand. Finally, Stuart.Jamieson, I didn't add the uncropped original; it's still someone else's crop, though if you'd prefer that uncropped version, by all means make it so! – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies06:40, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Keraunoscopia, think there was some confusion there - I meant you added the photograph to commons originally after which mycanon cropped the image and added the new version to commons. The implication wasn't that the cropped or uncropped version was better - it was simply to affirm that even though I dislike the picture I wasn't dismissing the hard work you had put into finding and transferring the 2012 image from flickr. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 07:05, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have just modified 5 external links on Isla Fisher. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
This is listed under filmography, as a film work from 2002. I can't find any source for a film with that name. There's a 2002 reality TV mini-series about famous people and their dogs, but Isla Fisher is not listed in its IMDb page, nor in Wikipedia's stub for it. She might well be featured in an episode, but if there's no source, I'd remove the entry altogether. At the very least it needs to be moved away from the film section. I'd also change the order of TV and film, to match what it's commonly done on Wikipedia (i.e. film first), especially considering film work is her main occupation she's mostly known for. Kumagoro-42 (talk) 11:12, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=logo}
