Jump to content

Talk:John Gielgud/Archive 1

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

Fair use rationale for Image:Prosperosbooks.jpg

Image:Prosperosbooks.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- BetacommandBot 23:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Final TV performance

Gielgud's final performance (in Beckett's Catastrophe) was first shown on Channel 4 television. Surely that makes this (not Merlin) his last TV appearance? AuntFlo (talk) 01:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Some ancestry details

Would it be irrelevant to name his ancestry? Ellen Terry and Fred Terry were his Grand aunt, and uncle. His grandmother, their sister, Kate Terry also was a successful actress. It was quite a theatrical family; going further, his great-grandparents were a travelling acting troupe, going round the whole country. Maybe this has been intentionally not added - I am just enquiring. Unwisely (talk) 20:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

References

There is a lot of good stuff in the article as it stands, but very few citations for the many statements made throughout. Would any editor object to my having a go at adding references, and copy editing where necessary? It would be pleasing to get this article up to GA level at least. Tim riley (talk) 13:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Removed original research in section about gay life

I removed not only the original research but also the opinionated statement that Mr. Beaumont was a classy producer. I reworded the paragraph about the theatrical play that was performed for the first time more than fifty years after Gielgud's brush with the law.

Am I supposed to believe that the homophobic establishment censored all artistic portrayals of Gielgud's arrest for more than 50 years? Am I supposed to believe that when "they" finally stopped censoring it in 2008, the playwright expected millions of people to know the facts about a fifty-year-old incident they had never heard of? He created a piece of fiction. It is just as fictitious as Angels in America: A Gay Fantasia on National Themes, which is based on the false premise that Roy Cohn tortured and murdered poor Ethel Rosenberg because of his repressed gayness. (In truth, she and her husband were guilty of espionage involving nuclear weapons, and Cohn's sex life had nothing to do with his prosecution of her. He deserved condemnation for his assistance to Joe McCarthy and he deserved the disbarment he faced in the 1960s, but unfortunately his statements about Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were true. After the Soviet Union expired in 1991, its archives yielded documents proving the couple was guilty of espionage. So much for the truth about Roy Cohn hurting other people because of his closeted gay lifestyle.)

The previous versions of the Gielgud article contained gossip and speculation. They promoted a paranoid approach to the notion that "they" tormented and silenced gay people in the United Kingdom and the United States for decade after decade until "they" finally said, "We give up. Go ahead and say what you want about dead people." If you check other Wikipedia articles about dead actors, you will notice that everyone you've ever heard of was gay or bisexual, and "they" hushed it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.151.38.178 (talk) 23:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

As I'm writing this I can see you have immediately re-reverted your changes back in rather than bothering to follow the guidance of WP:BRD (diff). Example issues are:
  • "A 21st-century biographer of Sir Laurence Olivier has speculated, without proof, that Gielgud was gay" constitutes original research.
  • Removing facts about Gielgud's lovers appears to be an attempt to throw doubt on the facts of his gay life.
  • "a gay-related criminal prosecution allegedly involving Gielgud from more than 50 years earlier" makes it appear that the criminal prosecution is "alleged"; as it was reported in The Times, this again appears an attempt to put the facts of his gay life artificially in doubt when there is no doubt in the sources.
Please follow the WP:BRD guidance and give discussion a chance, reverse your edits until they are properly discussed. At the moment your actions make it appear that you are pushing an agenda and removing valid sourced material without discussion. By the way, please do not refer the the text you have removed as "my stuff", I do not own this article. Ash (talk) 00:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

War and Remembrance

Am I missing the mentions of War and Remembrance in this article? He played Jastrow, the American Jew sent to Auschwitz. Sierraoffline444 (talk) 03:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Be interesting to know why someone has removed from this section absolutely relevant and worthwhile mentions of two uses of characters in fiction specifically based on Gielgud, as well as more about the Nicholas de Jongh play. Certainly I couldn't be bothered putting it back.

Rogersansom (talk) 08:07, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I cannot now understand the point I made above. Either I was mistaken, or those references have been reverted. There does seem to have been some re-editing and reverting, according to this page.

Rogersansom (talk) 12:40, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Authenticity

A search reveals that the phrase "regarded by many" appears in the text. Is the phrase a symptom of a dubious statement? Could a source be quoted instead? Perhaps the "many" could be identified? Might text be edited to more genuinely reflect specific facts? -- Wetman

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:John Gielgud/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Small and dissapoiting article for an actor so well respected

Last edited at 01:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 15:07, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Unfair implication

Perhaps I am just a little slow stupid, but I am confused by the following statement under the heading 'Birth and family background':

In his autobiography, Gielgud states repeatedly and clearly that his father was Polish Catholic. However in the same autobiography, 'John Gielgud: The Authorized Biography', he mentions Gelgaudiškis as being his ancestral home from where his family and their surname originated.

There are two issues:

  1. The paragraph seems to imply that there is a contradiction between his father being a Polish Catholic and him mentioning Gelgaudiškis as being his ancestral home from where his family and their surname originated. The two statements are entirely compatible. Between 1569 and 1795, Poland and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania were united in as a single commonwealth (and in a personal union for a considerable period of time previous to that), so the histories of the two countries are inextricably linked. Surely it is unfair to imply an inconsistency (or even a lack of honesty) when such an implication ignores the fact that it is entirely plausible that his father's branch of the family chose Poland over Lithuania at some point in history (all the more plausible if they were, as claimed, Roman Catholics who would otherwise have been stranded in a Lithuania where Roman Catholicism was widely regarded as apostasy).
  2. This may seem pedantic; but surely an autobiography is an account of a persons life, written by that person. Whilst 'John Gielgud: The Authorized Biography' may have been written with his blessing and cooperation, it wasn't actually written by him – which I presume is why both the title and the cover make it clear that it is an “authorised biography”, which was openly written by Sheridan Morley (as opposed to being ghost written by Sheridan Morley and masquerading as being an autobiography written by John Gielgud).

To my mind there is just a really heavy whiff of original and unnecessary research going on here; so, unless someone can explain why the article should be left as it is (such as a primary source implying a discrepancy), I intend to adjust the article accordingly when making a few other minor additions. navlebeskuelse (talk) 17:00, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Referral To Filmography : The Prime Minister

Sunday 10 June 2010

L.S. ,

Can someone please include the following link to his biographical film : The Prime Minister ( which is truly an outstanding portret ) .

I've made amendments but this wikipedia link remains unrecognized : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Prime_Minister_(film)

See the red italic header " The Prime Minister " in 1. Film work & 2. Selected filmography .

Thank you . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.125.161.39 (talk) 00:41, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Sunday, Dec. 22, 2013: In the filmography, I have noticed an omission: "Murder by Decree" (1979), starring Christopher Plummer and James Mason. In this film he again plays a high minister of the British government, and very well. A minor, but important, role; very similar in length and standing to his work in 1974's "Gold". John G. Lewis (talk) 10:56, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

As WP has an article about Murder by Decree I have added it to the list, but the the 'Selected filmography' heading is beginning to look like a misnomer. Philip Cross (talk) 11:05, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to upgrade for FAC

Having successfully taken Ralph Richardson's article to WP:FA, with marvellous input from editors in four continents, I am working on doing the same for Gielgud's. There is rather a lot of uncited material in the present article, which I propose to remove, necessitating a rewrite of much of the text using sourced material. May I ask any interested editor to ensure that any uncited statement which he or she wants kept is given a citation to a WP:RS? As with the Richardson article, I envisage that we will move the lists of film roles and awards to their own page (see here), improving them and adding all stage roles to them. A Wiki-colleague is, I think, working on this at the moment.

Grateful for any preliminary thoughts and suggestions here before completing the overhaul of the article, which I foresee will be in about a week's time. – Tim riley (talk) 10:43, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

As per the above, I've hived off the filmography section to a new page, John Gielgud, roles and awards. I'm preparing a replacement for the information in a sandbox at the moment, which will be a full outline of all his stage, film, radio and television roles. Once finished this will (hopefully) be put forward to FLC as an accompaniment to this page. - SchroCat (talk) 18:22, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Excellent! I've moved my stuff from my sandbox into the main space, and after a bit more polishing it should be ready for peer review. Meanwhile, all contributions welcome, of course. Tim riley (talk) 20:51, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Info-box

I see that a good faith edit by an IP adding an info-box was reverted by SchroCat earlier today. I agree with the reversion, and I think it might be a good idea to record on this page that the consensus is against a box, as unneeded clutter here (if indeed that is the consensus). Comments invited from all and sundry, near and far. Tim riley talk 18:50, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

What consensus? This is nonsense. There is a great deal of material in an infobox that just clutters the lead, the sibling info added in the edit which preceded his is not in the lede. The lede doesn't mention the name of Geilgud's partner, Martin Hensler. Nor the dates of their relationship. Nor Geilgud's birthplace, Nor his death place, death cause, or death date. Nor the fact that he sang. Infoboxes are not intended to replace the lead, nor vice-versa, they serve a different purpose and most famous people have them in their articles. See, e.g. his contemporaries, such as Laurence Olivier, Spencer Tracy, Yul Brynner, Helen Hayes, Audrey Hepburn, etc... Montanabw(talk) 21:22, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Please do not edit war on this. The non-infobox version is that which was passed at FAC: there is the consensus. To claim there is no consensus is indeed nonsense. There is no need for an idiot box here, and the passing through PR and FAC without comment on the lack puts it into perpective. Yes, some others have them, (see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS), but many don't, if you want to play that particular game. (and as for no death date, try the opening line, between the brackets, just after the name...) BTW, to claim - as you did in your edit summary - that there is "No consensus to remove" misses the point that there was no consensus to add the IB. It was done in good faith, but so was the removal. - SchroCat (talk) 21:37, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Omit infobox: While here, I will add my comment that there is certainly no need for minor factoids to take pride of place in the upper right corner of the article. - SchroCat (talk) 21:33, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Omit infobox: The infobox is not helpful in this article. The information in it is either repetitive or of relatively minor importance. The information is much better presented in the carefully considered narrative text. See also WP:DISINFOBOX. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:45, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Consensus can change. Info boxes and leads do not serve the same purpose. An infobox is formatted to be an easy at-a -glance read. A lead is the actual introduction to an article. If infoboxes were simply repetitions of a lead which is what the argument here is then we could remove any infobox on any article that has a lead. Since that's not the case or situation that argument doesn't hold water. I support an info box. Why not give the reader an easy and simple way of seeing what the article is about, and this is about the reader, not any of us.(Littleolive oil (talk) 21:50, 4 December 2014 (UTC))
Are we not also readers? Idiot boxes pander to the lowest common denominator. The important information is in the lead, the rest is partly fluff. The consensus not to have a box needs to be overturned, but I'm not seeing anything that is going to change my mind so far. - SchroCat (talk) 21:58, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
As an aside the first revert with out discussion was made by SchroCat. I'd like to revert to the IP's work until we have reason to believe his work is not acceptable. We don't have that situation at this point.(Littleolive oil (talk) 21:54, 4 December 2014 (UTC))
Why would we revert to the new version that didn't go through two community processes? The logic on that is deeply flawed, I'm afraid. If you want to overturn the consensus, the status quo remains until that happens. - SchroCat (talk) 21:58, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Content is added all the time without "community processes" Further FACs and GAs are changed all the time and do not require consensus. A FAC does not necessarily mean consensus as we well know. It simply means one or a small number of people think an article as a whole has reached a specific standard Further in your edit summary you suggest that all of the content in the info box is in the lead which is not true. I'm afraid I don't see any real arguments here. I think your cmts indicate a bias. "idiot boxes, lowest common denominator. Scientists always write an abstract is that pandering to the lowest common denominator. (Littleolive oil (talk) 22:17, 4 December 2014 (UTC))

  • Omit infobox Although I wouldn't consider birth place and alma mater "fluff" exactly, it looks a lot better without it IMO. We're not imdb anyway. There is consensus among the article writers and reviewers Montana for no infobox, it's the case on most of the articles. As it turns out I'm currently developing User:Dr. Blofeld/Stanley Kubrick without one too. When I get around to Audrey I'd rather see a pretty image than the box too. I see most of them in biographies as unnecessary furniture which mostly replicates what is said in the lead anyway. It's different for things like sportspeople which have a lot of data. I can see why some people advocate them, but I'm sure soon enough there'll be an option in preferences and data controlled by wiki data.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:06, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: I won't vote in a discussion which politely mentions "idiot" twice. The only people who should be asked if an infobox is helpful in this article would be the readers. Consensus of those who don't see that? (What I would vote if I would vote is known enough.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:16, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Funny ;) - Of course you are one reader, vs. 16729 during the last 30 days (be proud of the stats). Let's deduct generously for editors clicking and bots, - I would still see that there is a majority out there not asked. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:54, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
And yet of the 16,729, only one decided to add an IB (and none raised the question on the talk page). I'm not going to pre-judge on where the majority is or isn't, but only one person raising the question in any format out of 16,729 is suggestive. - SchroCat (talk) 22:57, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps you are suggesting we write to suit ourselves rather than the general public. Don't confuse readers in the WP sense with ability we all have to read the articles. The real question is what is our role, and our role when writing articles is to write for the general public, our readers, not to please ourselves, the editors. And my point remains. There is content in the infobox that is not in the lead. How do you address that concern?(Littleolive oil (talk) 22:30, 4 December 2014 (UTC))
No, as I have said, we are both editors and readers. I am an editor and I am a member of the general public. Yes, there was pointless clutter in the IB that isn't needed up at the top of the article. I don't see the issue with the fluff not being there, TBH. - SchroCat (talk) 22:35, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
So you are writing for yourself? Ownership comes to mind, None of these issues exclude an infobox. A pretty picture and an infobox can exist together, are not mutually exclusive. I won't say anything more about a need for pretty pictures in an encyclopedic article or how that sounds to women? The suggestions are that these issue are mutually exclusive, but they aren't. In total the arguments are spurious guys, they don't hold water. (Littleolive oil (talk) 22:56, 4 December 2014 (UTC))
Ownership? I wondered when someone would start being so cheap as to throw mindless insults around based on nothing. You have not come up with any good arguements as to why theconsensus should be overturned. All you have done is drive the conversation into the gutter of insults. Thanks for lowering the tone. - SchroCat (talk) 23:00, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose infobox – per Tim, SchroCat and others. Cassiantotalk 23:10, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

No one lowered anything here. The problem is that when you made the revert there was no consensus and you reverted a series of reasonable, non-vandal edits without agreement or discussion. Those arguing against an infobox came in later to establish their position and support yours. That there was an original consensus is a false statement; you are basing this argument in general on something which did not exist. Is there consensus now, maybe. You insisted on calling yourself reader and editor as an argument for editing in a way you saw was suitable to your opinion and position. Think about what means and looks like. As for my position I've said what I had to say and made my position clear. Good luck with the rest of the article and best wishes.(Littleolive oil (talk) 23:16, 4 December 2014 (UTC))

You did lower yourself. You threw around ownership accusations, which was a pretty stupid thing for you to do. Your views have been noted, but unfortunately do not void the current status quo. Also, please familiarise yourself with WP:BRD. That is why it was reverted. Cassiantotalk 23:21, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

−

@oil. It looks like things aren't getting through here. When this article went through PR and FAC it did not have an IB. It has, therefore, been through two community processes without the question being raised, and no-one suggesting that the IB is needed. THAT IS THE CURRENT CONSENSUS, whether you like it or not. When the IP added the IBS, there was no consensus to do so, and it was removed on the same good faith grounds as the editor who added it. To claim there was no consensus to remove the box is a falsehood. You are trying to claim a consensus for its existence that did not exist, and still does not exist. I hope this is now in simple enough language that it finally makes it self apparent to you. – SchroCat (talk) 23:25, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

SchroCat, the only person making insults here is you, and you appear to even be arguing with yourself. I respect that good minds may dffer on the infobox topic, but the reality is that consensus can change and a well-designed infobox is a common element on well over half of all wikipedia articles, and {{Infobox person}} and its variants appear on at least hundreds of actor articles. MOS:INFOBOX is clear: they "summarize key facts that appear in the article" and "[allowi] readers to identify key facts at a glance." There are additional benefits, which I don't need to recap here as we've all heard them 100 times and we all know the standard debate. But bottom line si that the crack about "indb" is misplaced - In the FA category where this article is placed, there are 56 other biographies, most about actors. Eight of them lack infoboxes, (plus this one, so 9) all the rest have them, both of living and deceased individuals. Naturally, someone here will raise OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, to which I shall preemptively counter IDONTLIKEIT, so now we can agree that we've thrown capital letters at each other and be done with it. The issue is if an infobox is useful, which it is, if it is accurate, which can be fixed if it's not, and beyond that, I really fail to see why anyone has to throw a fit about its inclusion. NOTDEMOCRACY also applies, and I really am failing to see any way that civilization as we know it will vanish if one is included, and it is clear that its addition is not going to harm the FA status of the article. Montanabw(talk) 23:40, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

No:Your friend was the one who stared throwing baseless insults around, so cut out the finger pointing. And I fail to see where I am arguing with myself? I see little of merit in your argument and and I really am failing to see any way that civilization as we know it will vanish if one is not included. - SchroCat (talk) 23:45, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Let's be clear. When you removed that infobox you did not have consensus nor did you bring discussion of that revert to this page. You did not. Someone else finally did.Who made the first revert and started the edit war?. Do you have consensus now, maybe. I have not claimed a consensus on anything. I have no problem with discussion based on truth but you are making false claims and that's not a great idea. As for lowering the tone here, idiot and stupid seem unnecessary while a suggestion that actions, given a clear position may violate one of our policies or guidelines is not? Now. I'm done here. You have established a voted-on agreement to remove the infobox at this time. And my position which every editor has a right to, is that the arguments for its removal do not hold water. Further, I'm not particularly impressed with the false accusations.(Littleolive oil (talk) 23:50, 4 December 2014 (UTC))

You really don't understand how Wikipedia works, do you? Let's go through this in simple terms:
  • This article has gone through two community processes without an IB. There is, therefore, a consensus not to include one.
  • An IP added an IB in good faith, as he is allowed to do.
  • As per WP:BRD, I reverted, as I am allowed to do. I need get no additional consensus from anyone to revert the article back to its stable state.
  • Tim riley opened this thread to discuss the IB question (and agreed that the removal was correct).
  • Montanabw edit warred to re-insert the IB against consensus and when there was already an open thread on this, and in breach of BRD. At the very least that is procedurally poor.
  • i put it back to the last stable state, prior to Montanabw's edit warring.
I doubt that you will agree that Montanabw has edit warred, but you'll only be being dishonest to yourself if you don't. I make no false claims at all, and your inability to see that the consensus not to have an IB pre-dates the IPs addition is a reflection of your entrenched views, nothing else. I'll only add that there are no false accusations, so please do not try to smear me with your innuendo. - SchroCat (talk) 00:02, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Littleolive, where was the IP's consensus to add an infobox? If we need a consensus to remove it, then surely that logic works the other way, no? Articles are not born with info boxes, nor is it obligatory for them to have one once they have been created. Cassiantotalk 10:47, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Given that we have a clear consensus on this page against an info-box, may I suggest we politely note Littleolive oil's doubtless good-faith views and then move on, leaving the article as vetted at PR and FAC? – Tim riley talk 00:22, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Chimes at Midnight (1965)

@Tim riley: Was fortunate enough to see that film recently. He was excellent in it as King Henry IV, can you reword slightly and mention that he portrayed Henry IV in it? One of the most talented casts I've seen in any film in that one, Margaret Rutherford, one of my favourite actresses also in it. Would love to get her up to FA at some point..♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:22, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I've added a note about the roles. Tim riley talk 13:53, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

RMS and edit warring

I know you are aware of WP:BRD, as I've had to ask you to avoid edit warring to your own poor standards before, but your edit warring is becoming frequent bore. Your edits were reverted because they were sub-optimal. That's it. If you somehow think they are better, please explain, rather than your contestant reversions based on nothing but your own preference. To note: you are at the limit of WP:3RR, so if the article is returned to its former state and you revert again, I will happily report you in the appropriate forum. - SchroCat (talk) 17:09, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree with SchroCat concerning the recent edits. Please stop edit-warring, User:Rms125a@hotmail.com. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:14, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
I am not edit-warring; it is SchroCat who violated WP:3RR first, who falsely cited WP:BRD, when his nitpicking trivialities (which could have been easily resolved had he explained his objections) do not constitute anything remotely BOLD, and who refused to explain the reasons for his reverting my edits at least once. He also made arrogant obnoxious and demeaning comments, to all of which you appear to be oblivious, @Ssilvers, surprise, surprise. Quis separabit? 21:38, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
RMS, please mind your civility. CassiantoTalk 21:42, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Despite your false accusation, I have not "violated" 3RR. If you think I have, please feel free to file a report. Your edits were poor (a plain link to another site withint the text? Good grief!) which is why it was reverted. That was not "nit-picking": that is basic stuff. I have made no "arrogant obnoxious and demeaning comments", and I think you should have a look at the WP:CIVILITY policy, but I suspect the irony of this, given your comments, may be lost on you. – SchroCat (talk) 21:55, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm rather late to the party, but am I to understand that User:Quis separabit? perpetrated an external link within the main text and then edit-warred to keep it there in the face of the MoS ("standard formatting requirements...not placing links in the text of the article")? Very poor conduct, in my view, as well as wholly pointless given that the article is fully cited on this point. Tim riley talk 22:37, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Infobox again

Why is this article without an infobox? An earlier discussion deemed that an infobox wasn't necessary, but the page looks sloppy without one and it makes the article inconsistent with other pages for no good reason. Auror Andrachome (talk) 20:35, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Maybe back in 2014, when the consensus was reached, it wasn't as standard to have infoboxes? I agree as well though that the page feels incomplete without an infobox. Jeanjung212 (talk) 16:51, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
As predicted. List an article for TFA and we get this old bullshit again. CassiantoTalk 17:26, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
I agree, I find the infobox very useful and when I first opened this page I've felt it incomplete. Giant Lizard (talk) 08:48, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose infobox. The Manual of Style says: "Whether to include an infobox ... is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article." While sports and politician bios can benefit from infoboxes, most articles in liberal arts fields, as here, do not: "Infoboxes may be particularly unsuited to liberal arts fields when they repeat information already available in the lead section of the article, are misleading or oversimplify the topic for the reader". I disagree with including an infobox in this article because: (1) The box would emphasize unimportant factoids stripped of context and lacking nuance, in competition with the WP:LEAD section, which emphasizes and contextualizes the most important facts. (2) Since the most important points in the article are already discussed in the Lead, or adequately discussed in the body of the article, the box would be redundant. (3) It would take up valuable space at the top of the article and hamper the layout and impact of the Lead. (4) Frequent errors creep into infoboxes, as updates are made to the articles but not reflected in the redundant info in the box, and they tend to draw more vandalism and fancruft than other parts of articles. (5) The infobox template creates a block of code at the top of the edit screen that discourages new editors from editing the article. (6) It would discourage readers from reading the text of the article. (7) IBs distract editors from focusing on the content of the article. Instead of improving the article, they spend time working on this repetitive feature and its coding and formatting. See also WP:DISINFOBOX. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:17, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose infobox (after edit conflict) @Jeanjung212: The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article per WP:INFOBOXUSE so it is most definitely not "standard"; IBs also do not allow for the nuance required in many of this type of biography which are not suited to such a basic factoid presentation. In my opinion it is discourteous and most disrespectful to the main contributors of this quality article - who have both retired after being worn down by the constant onslaught on articles they have done the most work on by IB advocates that have rarely made any contributions to the article - although I do appreciate that some may not have been editing long enough to be aware of the circumstances. SagaciousPhil - Chat 18:24, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per this. Firstly, I don't understand why we have to keep having the same laborious discussion about the same laborious subject time and time again. Secondly, this article was promoted at WP:FAC without an infobox which, in itself, was a consensus, together with the one held in 2014. Thirdly, I didn't see anyone at FAC calling this excellent article "sloppy" or "incomplete", so can you Auror Andrachome, and you Jeanjung212, please show more respect to the two authors who are responsible for making this article what it is today. CassiantoTalk 18:56, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
My ignorance on this issue was my own fault and thankyou for taking the time to explain and link the further reading. I now understand the view of not wanting an infobox on the article and how this still applies currently. Jeanjung212 (talk) 19:40, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Tiny grammatical mistake being turned into idiotic edit war

I have corrected a minor grammatical and stylistic solecism in the text. It has now been reverted without justification twice; firstly by Tim riley and now by SchroCat, who from comments on this page seems to be a more senior editor but also Tim Riley's friend.

The change I made is this: the original text read:

"After Hillside, Lewis had won a scholarship to Eton, and Val had done likewise to Rugby, but John, lacking their academic achievement, did not follow them.[10]"

This sentence is stylistically clumsy (it has three subordinate clauses in one and a quarter lines). It also contains a category error (i.e. the use of 'academic achievement' when 'academic prowess' or 'academic talent' is clearly meant). It also contains what grammarians call a 'denied conclusion' (i.e. it says 'John... did not follow them' thus implying the question 'Follow them where?' To Rugby? Or to Eton? Or to any public school?). I bring up these points only to show that the sentence has multiple grammatical, syntactical and stylistic flaws. However, I made only one change:

"After Hillside, Lewis had won a scholarship to Eton, as Val had done likewise to Rugby, but John, lacking their academic achievement, did not follow them.[10]"

I changed "and" to "as". This is more precise - since it compares the educational qualifications of the brothers; it's smoother in terms of style; and it's grammatically correct, distinguishing a preposition from a conjunction.

Now, as this talk page clearly shows, it seems that you two seem to have a deeply entrenched feeling of ownership over this particular article. May I therefore ask you to set it aside and simply allow a correct grammatical edit to be made without turning this into a long contest over one letter? My compliments to you both. Hubertgrove (talk) 04:11, 6 March 2016 (UTC) Hubertgrove

In fact, I have now wholly re-edited the sentence so that its style and grammar are rectified. I hope this concludes the issue. Hubertgrove (talk) 04:32, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Firstly, pleased do not try and personalise the matter by commenting on others. No-one here is "a senior editor", as there is no such thing. Tim and I are both editors who have worked on this article (see the page history and its candidacy as a featured article). Furthermore, if you decide to throw petty insults around (such as accusations of ownership), you will only annoy and irritate others, and you are lucky not to receive a blast of base Anglo-Saxon in return.
The sentence, as it first stood and as it now stands again, is grammatically correct. I am not sure where you are from (given the time you are editing, I suspect you are not British), and you may be unaware of British English; you may be judging this under some different variant. Suffice to say that during this article's progress through the peer review and FA candidacy, the grammar was checked thoroughly by numerous experienced editors, who judged the passage acceptable.
I do not know why you have chosen to edit war instead of use the talk page, but I should like to point out that you are now at the edges of WP:3RR, and if you revert based on your personal preference, I will be happy to file an edit warring report in the appropriate forum. In case you are unaware, the extant version remains while changes are discussed. – – SchroCat (talk) 07:01, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
One hardly knows where to begin. Rising above the personalisation and snide comments by the editor Hubertgrove, one can only agree with SchroCat that the change showed a lack of understanding of good English. Hubertgrove's change turned a clear and correct statement into a clumsy tautology, and whether his/her first language is English or not, that simply won't do for a Featured Article. As SchroCat rightly remarks, the article has been reviewed by experienced editors at PR and FAC, and it seems to me that what we have here is a case of "Everyone's out of step except my little Hubertgrove". -- Tim riley talk 11:52, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Because of some misplaced - and impermissible - feelings of ownership towards particular article and some wounded sensitivities, you have deleted a cleaned up and grammatically correct edit. You gave this reversion the comment Incorrect in fact amd grammer. This is now reverted.

You also made some rather racist comments about me. 'I suspect you are not British), and you may be unaware of British English'. Your suspicions are wrong. Since you bring it up: I am a natural-born UK citizen whose first language is English; I am a graduate of Durham University in English Literature and am studying an MA in the same subject at Edinburgh University as a mature student; I am a published author and journalist; my profession until recently was copywriter. May I enquire what are you qualifications please? Do you have formal academic or professional proficiencies in grammar, syntax and style?

Finally, you posted an impolite and peremptory message on my personal talk page. I have deleted this. If you wish to communicate with me, please do so in a courteous manner on this page. Any further communications on my Talk Page cannot be answered and will be deleted

If you revert this edit again, I will complaint about your behaviour and your edit warring. Thank you. Hubertgrove (talk) 15:21, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

OK, within five minutes of me making this legitimate edit, you reverted it without explanation. I have had enough of your bizarre behaviour. I am going to make a formal complaint of edit warring and disruptive editing, and apply for the page to be protected against your vandalism. Hubertgrove (talk) 15:35, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

As I've posted on your talk page: stop bloody edit warring on this, stop baselessly accusing people of vandalism when it obviously isn't and stop accusing people of ownership just because you are not getting your way. See WP:STATUSQUO over why you need to leave the current version in place while you discuss the matter (politely, if that's possible). Feel free to file a report if you'd like: it will not work out well for you. – SchroCat (talk) 16:14, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

  • The change from "and" to "as" implies a link, a causality maybe, between the two gettings of scholarships that is not warranted here, as far as I can tell. I mean, since this is listed as a grammatical problem (it's not--it's style: it has nothing to do with "correctness", which is I think what was implied), I can be picky, though my pickiness comes from policy: WP:OR. I don't like the sentence to begin with, I'll grant you that, but that's probably because I'm more used to US English. In addition, "it seems that you two seem to have a deeply entrenched feeling of ownership" is really a borderline personal attack and it was correctly pointed out to you, Hubertgrove, that you should play the ball, not the man. "I suspect you are not British" is not racist either. Strictly speaking, "your bizarre behavior" is maybe not a personal attack, but it flies in the face of AGF etc. If all of y'all cooled it down some (yes, SchroCat and Tim r., you as well), this could be worked out quite easily. Just let me not hear anyone say the one is grammatically correct and the other isn't, since that's not what's going on here. Drmies (talk) 16:32, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Drmies Thanks for intervening. But I rewrote the offending sentence to avoid the 'as' or 'and' problem - and to render it stylistically and grammatically correct. Did you not see the new sentence? If you review that sentence, you will see it avoids the problem completely and is now an easier read.
[From my own academic and commercial experience, I am afraid you are simply wrong on the matter of grammar (on the simplest level, one doesn't put a comma before 'and' except in exceptionally rare circumstances - for example, the Oxford comma). However this maybe a distinction between British and US usage. However, this point is moot since the sentence is changed] Hubertgrove (talk) 16:50, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
  • "As" suggests a causality or connection where there is none in this instance. "And" does not make such an implication. The sentance is, as it stands, grammatically correct. As to the claim that "one doesn't put a comma before 'and' except in exceptionally rare circumstances" just isn't correct I'm afraid. – SchroCat (talk) 17:40, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
It is a curious notion that it is racist to wonder whether someone whose English is patently not the Queen's English is English. I note that Hubertgrove imagines "moot" to mean "irrelevant", which is an American usage. (In English usage a moot point is one that is mooted - i.e. discussed. See the OED: "open to argument, debatable; uncertain, doubtful; unable to be firmly resolved". Nothing wrong with Americans using American usage, of course, but it mustn't be imposed on English writers.) For all Hubertgrove's many words on the matter, his/her change turned good English into a lumpen tautology. As we have patiently pointed out, the prose has been vetted at PR and FAC and evidently all the reviewers are out of step except Hubertgrove. Tim riley talk 19:48, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

IPA

Excellent addition by Petshmm, in my view. Thank you, Tim riley talk 21:25, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, since we're stating things for the record… I disagree. But, you know, only for the record. :) --Xover (talk) 07:52, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Xover, is there a reason why you disagree? I'm willing to be swayed in either direction as I'm rather impartial on this one. CassiantoTalk 08:38, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
@Cassianto: Simply that I don't think the pronounciation is particularly surprising or unusual, and so per the reasoning of MOS:LEADPRON it's not needed. It's not something I feel particularly strongly about, and I am also somewhat ambivalent on LEADPRON as a guideline (I'm inclined to the opposite default), so I'm just mentioning it since Tim brought it up. --Xover (talk) 09:15, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. I see merit in your argument. In my view, there is only one way to pronounce Gielgud's name - I don't see the confusion. CassiantoTalk 09:23, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Indeed there's only one way to pronounce "Gielgud", but unless one has heard someone pronounce it, it isn't obvious from the spelling. It could for all one could guess have a soft first G as in "gem" or "genius", or the "ie" could be pronounced as in "tie" or "fried". That is why I welcome Petshmm's addition. Tim riley talk 11:03, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
I hadn't thought of that. I'd be inclined to leave it in then. CassiantoTalk 12:24, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Knighthood

The British honours system include several types of knighthood. The lede of this article currently says:

he was knighted in...

I changed that to the unambiguous:

he was made a Knight Bachelor in...

but have been reverted, for no other reason than an apparent belief that such clarity was "not needed for the lede". Clearly, we should avoid the former ambiguity, just as we wouldn't say "[he] set up his own company at a theatre" or "high comedy roles such as John Worthing in a play".Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:33, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

"no other reason than an apparent belief": not quite. Yes, there are several types of knighthood, but most people in Britain, let alone the rest of the world, don't know or don't understand. Keeping it simple in the lead accommodates all, without adding extra confusion. - SchroCat (talk) 23:56, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
I concur with SchroCat. The current version complies with the usual form, as seen in analogous featured biographies. Commonsense and comprehensibility rather than pedantry are wanted here. (If pedantry were wanted, however, the appropriate term would be "he was created Knight Bachelor".) In the unlikely event that any of our readers wondered whether Gielgud was given the Garter or the Bath or the Michael and George the blue link would make all instantly clear. Though we should avoid the proposed, and to my mind spurious, precision in the lead, I shouldn't be so firmly opposed to expanding the mention in the main text, though I think the simple term with the blue link is better. Tim riley talk 07:33, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
Afterthought: the proposed change to the lead would also have put us in breach of WP:LEAD, which bids us not to put things in a lead that are not in the main article. Verbum sap. Tim riley talk 07:41, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
What, in my tsxt, is not in the main article? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:07, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
If you take the time to read the article (always a good move before editing) you will see that the main text refers to Gielgud's being knighted tout court. No mention of Bachelor. Tim riley talk 09:13, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
==Honours, character and reputation==
{{main|John Gielgud, roles and awards}}
Gielgud's state honours were [[Knight Bachelor]] (1953),

...always a good move, etc. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:17, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

None of which actually matters, considering the class of knighthood does not need to be mentioned in the lead. Brevity and conciseness are better than superfluous detail. – SchroCat (talk) 10:25, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
Good point. The good sense in omitting the class of knighthood from the lead is pointed up by the fact that we don't mention the award dates for his OM and CH there - much greater honours, but registering a high So What? score from most non-specialist readers, I'm pretty sure. Indeed I wonder if we should revisit the other FAs on JG's contemporaries and find a consistent way of covering honours in the lead sections: chez Sir Ralph we don't mention them and for Sir Laurence we list three of them. I'll give some thought to this and come back with suggestions. Tim riley talk 11:08, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
Ahem. If you trouble to read the whole article you will see "During the season Gielgud was knighted in the 1953 Coronation Honours". No mention of Bachelor. Do you object to that too? Tim riley talk 10:54, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
The markup I quoted appears in the current version of this article. Here is where you yourself edited the very sentence that includes - ahem - the "mention of Bachelor". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:35, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
Jesus... Just drop it mabbett - we don't need a oh-no-you-didn't, oh-yes-he-did back and forth. It's too much detail for the lead: if you have any further comments on that point, then let's hear them; if you don't, then we're done here. - SchroCat (talk) 12:56, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Peggy Ashcroft

This may be a silly thing to bring up, but I had noticed that Gielgud's lead refers to Laurence Olivier and Ralph Richardson as a trinity of actors that dominated the British stage, while Olivier and Richardson's page refer to each other (as well Gielgud) in the same manner, but also Peggy Ashcroft. Should Peggy Ashcroft be added to the lead here to keep consistency? Just a thought - Aza24 (talk) 09:43, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

The original FAs just referred to the trinity of actors, echoing the sources. An Ashcroft fan added her, which I don't think an improvement, though I don't feel passionately about the matter. Better to delete her from the other articles in my view, but what do others think? Tim riley talk 17:14, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
(Afterthought: for the avoidance of doubt, I count myself an Ashcroft fan, and feel privileged to have seen her on stage when I was a young man, but I don't think she belongs in the lead of JG's or Olivier's or Richardson's articles.) Tim riley talk 17:19, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
I would also delete the mention of Ashcroft in the Olivier and Richardson lead first paragraphs. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:38, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
And perhaps refer to Olivier, Richardson and Gielgud as a 'trinity of male actors'?--Smerus (talk) 06:22, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Admirable though Dame Peggy was, I don’t think the commonly-held understanding regarding the “Holy Trinity” would include her. See here [1], or here [2], or here [3]. KJP1 (talk) 07:26, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
I agree with others here. Not notable enough to be included in the lead. CassiantoTalk 07:42, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks to all for comments. I'll leave this thread open for a few days more in case anyone else wants to comment, and if not I'll delete Dame Peg from the various leads, as suggested. Tim riley talk 21:19, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Where's the filmography?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Gielgud,_roles_and_awards

I feel like their should be a link to his filmography made my clearly in the article. I'm not sure how best to incorporate his screen legacy within the context of the article, but it feels weird to have his written works listed in the main article but not his TV or movies. Thoughts?

If you click on any of the links called "Film" at the head of the various sections it will take you to the relevant part of the filmography. Tim riley talk 15:37, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_Gielgud/Archive_1&oldid=1136849360"