Talk:Keira Knightley/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Keira Knightley. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
This page is an Archive of the discussions from Keira Knightley talk page (Discussion page).
 |
|---|
Barnaby and suicide
"who reportedly attempted suicide after their relationship ended, although Synnott denies these claims" about del synott: if that's true it really needs a source. removed the barnaby comment again. Is there anything to do about whoever is adding that? Amo 23:38, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
- Edit: ok i found a source, can someone add it http://www.contactmusic.com/new/xmlfeed.nsf/mndwebpages/knightley.s%20ex%20denies%20suicide%20attempt
Amo 23:38, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Star Wars mothers
That much-circulated rumour about Natalie and Keira's mothers not being able to tell them apart on set because of their heavy makeup is quite oddly expressed in the article. That's quite a specific way of putting it (one which i've certainly never heard before) so does someone have a reference? Cos if we can't find one, i think it should be altered to sound more general.
- Yeah, the whole thing sounds very stupid. Bronks 15 Feb 2006.
- i edited it. it was annoying me.
It may have annoyed you but here is the source. Read the first paragraph. http://www.sundayherald.com/print35535
All Keira Knightley remembers about Star Wars – in which she played the decoy Queen Padmé – is that even Natalie Portman’s mother couldn’t tell them apart. “I was running down a corridor in full make-up and her mum was running after me calling: ‘Natalie! Natalie!’ ”
- fantastic. That's a relief to know that. I'm not good with external links, but it should be added.
SEVB30 Feb 15 2006
Personal Life?
WOW, I can't believe we dont have more hear about Keira's personal life; growing up years-introduction to acting; relationships...ANYTHING! This is one of the current hottest actresses in Hollywood, and we need to cover her with a little more detail than this....
- So far all we've really got is a bit about her movie career...which almost reads like an IMDB filmography list, or at least, a bio anyone remotely familiar with Knightely could recite. Come on.....let's get MORE, people! :) --Teenwriter 15:05, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- I changed "early life" to "personal life". I know she's young but i don't think a section that descrbes where she "currently" lives is restricted to her early years.
Dyslexia?
The article states:
- Keira has dyslexia
There was an article in May 2004 (This is London) which brings a new twist to Keira's claim to dyslexia: her school apparently has neither records nor recollection of any such problem. --Phil | Talk 08:50, May 5, 2004 (UTC)
- I take it you mean her secondary school? I went there a couple of years before she did and from what I remember of their SEN (special educational needs) department I'm somewhat unsurprised. SEN records from that time were mostly on paper and only in recent years have they been computerised, if she wasn't statemented (officially marked as "special") they'd probably have little or no record as the paper would have been discarded (Data Protection Act). Xmp 00:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Somewhere on the Collecter's Edition of the Pirates of the Caribbean DVD, I think her and Jack Davenport's commentary, while talking about a line she was having trouble with, she says "not just me being dyslexic". --Peng 10:46, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Oh, wait. Um, nevermind, I think.... --Peng 22:11, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
Excuse me for placing this in the Dyslexia section, but would someone who knows the subject please correct this supposed sentence from the text and then erase my discusson comment here. Supposedly a sentence: "In contrast to Knightley's role in the same year of the regency englishwoman Elizabeth Bennett in a film adaption of Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice with Donald Sutherland and Matthew Macfadyen." Seminumerical 05:20, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Self-contradictory
Keira Knightley (born March 26, 1985 ...) [made] her film debut at the age of 11 in A Village Affair (1994).
Two pictures
Do we really need two pictures up there? A second doesn't really serve any useful purpose. I say get rid of one. --Jie 01:05, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I agree. We'll go back to having just the one. If you object, please come here and state why before you change it back ^__^
- I can't say I minded having two pictures, but I don't really have a good argument to keep both... Pity. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 03:37, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
What do you think of this image? I think it suits this page better than any if we're going to include photographs from PotC -- which we probably should because now that I think of it, Wikipedia likes screencaps from movies as fair use. I'm for this one. It's less revealing and helps make this more school and work friendly. Agree? Cookiecaper 04:13, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- This image suits the purpose fine. But what about its copyright status? On other wikipedias there are people who don't like the "Fair use"-label and start yappin' like crazy! Rienzo 11:09, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Okay I'll change to that one. This one is okay I think; it has the same credentials as the one that's there now anyway since their both captures from the film. ^_^ Cookiecaper 03:07, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- This image suits the purpose fine. But what about its copyright status? On other wikipedias there are people who don't like the "Fair use"-label and start yappin' like crazy! Rienzo 11:09, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- The ELLE pic is good because it is the best example of what she looks like, the Arthur pic is good as it shows her in a dramatic sense. I have no problem with more than one picture. AriGold 19:52, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
- Fair use images cannot be used just for identification. They must be accompanied by sufficient commentary to justify their inclusion. In my opinion an appearance on the cover of a fashion magazine is not noteworthy enough to justify extended commentary unless it was in some way related to scandal, controversy or something newsworthy. What is noteworthy is her appearence in films as she is in the encyclopedia for being an actress so if fair use images have to be used use screenshots showing her in the context of a scene in a film. It is OK to use a Playboy magazine cover in the Drew Barrymore article because this attracted controversy and comment from the media at the time. Arniep 23:09, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
- I'm in agreement with AriGold on this one. The Elle photo is more appropriate, and the Domino screenshot doesn't help at all. Using the King Arthur pic as the introductory photo is absurd. --Viriditas | Talk 01:01, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
- I notice you didn't once mention fair use in that statement. Arniep 01:48, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
- Why should I? The magazine cover image is used appropriately to inform the reader as to her appearance outside of her cinematic roles. --Viriditas | Talk 02:12, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
- I notice you didn't once mention fair use in that statement. Arniep 01:48, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
- I'm in agreement with AriGold on this one. The Elle photo is more appropriate, and the Domino screenshot doesn't help at all. Using the King Arthur pic as the introductory photo is absurd. --Viriditas | Talk 01:01, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
- Fair use images cannot be used just for identification. They must be accompanied by sufficient commentary to justify their inclusion. In my opinion an appearance on the cover of a fashion magazine is not noteworthy enough to justify extended commentary unless it was in some way related to scandal, controversy or something newsworthy. What is noteworthy is her appearence in films as she is in the encyclopedia for being an actress so if fair use images have to be used use screenshots showing her in the context of a scene in a film. It is OK to use a Playboy magazine cover in the Drew Barrymore article because this attracted controversy and comment from the media at the time. Arniep 23:09, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Using a copyrighted image to "inform the reader as to her appearance" is an infringement of copyright. Using a copyrighted image to provide commentary on the image may be fair use. In the case of magazine covers, it might be "fair use" in a discussion of the magazine. It is in no way fair use if we are simply stealing someone's work to illustrate their subject. See Wikipedia:Fair use for more details. Jkelly 02:18, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
- Informing the reader as to the appearance of Keira Knightly is identification, which is protected by Wikipedia:Fair_use. See Images section. --Viriditas | Talk 02:23, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
- An image of the cover of Elle is fair use for identification and critical commentary on Elle, not whichever model happens to be on that cover. See "counterexamples" on that page. Jkelly 02:30, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
- Those "counterexamples" don't seem to apply to magazine cover art for identification and research purposes, which appears to be protected fair use. [1] --Viriditas | Talk 02:44, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
- That article appears to deal with fair-use thumbnailing of copyrighted images:
- While the Arriba case might seem to have decided that thumbnails are fair use, this can't be relied on as a general rule. The Arriba case only decided the slender issue that thumbnails of another's aesthetic photos are a fair use when done for information-gathering or indexing purposes.
- I am not a judge, but I'd suspect we're using this image on its aesthetic merits not for information-gathering purposes (or indexing - Category:Fair use magazine covers is an example of the latter). But that aside, this is probably too large to class as a "thumbnail" by any reasonable definition. Note also:
- a thumbnail image will be deemed a fair use so long as it doesn't harm the market for the original image. ... That would seem to allow as fair use thumbnails of magazine covers, aesthetic artwork, web pages, charts and graphs, still shots from movies and text of any kind (since it would be unreadable)
- Note the comment of "since it would be unreadable". As mentioned above, this file is much bigger than a normal thumbnail (and expands to a fullsize version); there's effectively nothing degraded about the quality. Shimgray | talk | 03:10, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
- I've removed the image due to its high-resolution. I was under the impression that this was a standard low-res magazine cover upload, but upon looking at the image, it's not. Putting aside the image quality for the moment, regarding Category:Fair use magazine covers, I don't see much difference between the use of many Time magazine covers and the use of Elle. For example, the Time magazine cover on Augusto B. Leguía mentions nothing about Time. Then there's the Maxim cover image of Anna Kournikova in a Media publicity section, which simply mentions Maxim in passing. So, with that said, I would like to create a media publicity section and add a low-res image of this cover. --Viriditas | Talk 04:07, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
- Picture's resolution was deminished, so I put it back up. If anyone can find a picture that adequately shows what the actress in question looks like, without warpaint and blood on her face so that we can see what she REALLY looks like, then I am all for it. AriGold 13:28, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
- I've removed the image due to its high-resolution. I was under the impression that this was a standard low-res magazine cover upload, but upon looking at the image, it's not. Putting aside the image quality for the moment, regarding Category:Fair use magazine covers, I don't see much difference between the use of many Time magazine covers and the use of Elle. For example, the Time magazine cover on Augusto B. Leguía mentions nothing about Time. Then there's the Maxim cover image of Anna Kournikova in a Media publicity section, which simply mentions Maxim in passing. So, with that said, I would like to create a media publicity section and add a low-res image of this cover. --Viriditas | Talk 04:07, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
- That article appears to deal with fair-use thumbnailing of copyrighted images:
- Those "counterexamples" don't seem to apply to magazine cover art for identification and research purposes, which appears to be protected fair use. [1] --Viriditas | Talk 02:44, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
- An image of the cover of Elle is fair use for identification and critical commentary on Elle, not whichever model happens to be on that cover. See "counterexamples" on that page. Jkelly 02:30, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
At some point, someone said something about her appearance on Elle's cover being notable because she is not a model, and Elle normally features models on their cover. Working that information into the caption would strengthen a "fair use" claim to be providing commentary a great deal. I cannot now, however, find that comment. Does anyone know whether this is accurate? Jkelly 00:47, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
- well googling [2] I found Nicole Kidman, Demi Moore and Pamela Anderson on the first google images page as well as Jennifer Aniston on google web search so it doesn't look as if only models usually appear. Arniep 01:33, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
- and from ebay Paris Hilton, Christina Ricci, Beyonce, Madonna, Sophie Marceau, Jennifer Lopez, Dido, all non models. Arniep 01:55, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
In that case there isn't much reason to discuss an appearance on the cover of Elle in this article. Jkelly 21:41, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
- Viriditas suggested creating a media publicity section, detailing when Keira has appeared in certain magazines, as in Anna Kournikova, would this make the magazine cover fair use in your opinion? Arniep 23:03, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
- It's better than nothing. Is there some reason why an editor interested in illustrating this article with images cannot request a promotional photo from Knightley's agency? Or, even better, post questions to fan forums looking for someone who has shot photographs of her that they would be willing to release under the GFDL? Jkelly 00:17, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
- I had a quick look on fan sites but most seem to have commercial images, what we need is some kind of stalker! Arniep 21:54, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
- This site has a pretty comprehensive selection of photos some which could be fan images so its a possibility [3]. Arniep 22:14, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
- I had a quick look on fan sites but most seem to have commercial images, what we need is some kind of stalker! Arniep 21:54, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
- It's better than nothing. Is there some reason why an editor interested in illustrating this article with images cannot request a promotional photo from Knightley's agency? Or, even better, post questions to fan forums looking for someone who has shot photographs of her that they would be willing to release under the GFDL? Jkelly 00:17, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
Nudity
In 2005, Knightley began the year with the independent film The Jacket, which notably marks the first time she appears nude. This occurs during a lovemaking scene with the film's main character, Adrien Brody.
- That's not completely true, since she flashed someone in The Hole --Eel 05:55, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- What's interesting about that is, that if she was born in 1985, and the movie was released in 2001, then she would have been 16 when she did that. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that illegal? -- Riffsyphon1024 00:06, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
- No, sixteen is legal in Britain, I believe.Cookiecaper 00:14, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
- That I did not know. Interesting. -- Riffsyphon1024 09:11, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
- She already appeared nude in Dr. Zhivago as well. Old news. --Madchester 05:26, 2005 May 20 (UTC)
- Maybe old news to you, but others might not have known of that. -- Riffsyphon1024 09:11, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
- No, sixteen is legal in Britain, I believe.Cookiecaper 00:14, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
Lip agumentation
The article states that she admitted to having lip augumentation done in an interview, but I remember reading another interview where she says thats a lie, anyone know the source of the original confirmation? --217.43.221.25 21:45, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Wait, where does/did it say that? I don't see it. --Peng 28 June 2005 04:03 (UTC)
Black Scottish?
[[4]] says her mother is of "Black Scottish" (i.e. akin to "Black Irish"} descent. Does anyone have a good source to confirm that? I think that's an interesting bit of trivia and of course I don't the trust the in-desperate-need-of-Wikification IMDB. Vulturell 19:16, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
- There is a picture of her here [5] I don't have the source but the whole Black Irish thing is a myth invented by certain Victorian writers. Red hair and blue eyes in Scotland and Ireland probably come from Viking genes, where the Vikings didn't get to on the west of Scotland and Ireland there are more people with darker features Arniep 21:52, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
- Black? If you ask a Spaniard (you know the European Spaniards) if they're Black they'd get very offended because most of them are White (Caucasian as race-centric whites like to point out) and would gasp at the idea that any of their ancestrial cousins in other lands are considered Black. ALSO, what the hell do you call Scot or Irish residents who have or are mostly of African (Black) descent? That sorta leaves them out of the spectrum doesn't it?
LOL!!!!!
- LOL indeed, but hey man, I didn't come up with the term. Black Irish is just a commonly-used (and misleading, of course) phrase. Vulturell 03:06, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
wtf...... Malmsteen Maiden 06:26, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Unflattering photo
I don't like the magazine photo. It doesn't show how beautiful she is in my opinion. Does anyone have a better one? CalJW 08:51, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- I agree. Awful picture. Bronks, 19 November, 2005.
- Agreed, yes.
ナイトスタリオン ✉ 10:56, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Agreed, yes.
.
Since the Elle picture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:KeiraElle.jpg) has been listed for deletion, and since most people don't seem to like it, I uploaded a new image (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Keira-knightley-tidningsida.jpg), also a magazine cover. So, if it's just temporary or to be kept for a while, you decide. Bronks, 29 November, 2005.
- I really like it. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 20:14, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
- I miss the Elle photo! --Viriditas 14:46, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Jurassic Park 4
Don't think this should be in Keira's filmography since she was only approached for the film and never signed up. Agree she has talked about being approached for the film back in 2003 [6]but the most latest news on the film doesn't mention her: imdb, Yahoo Movies - states "in talks", JP4 dedicated fansite. In fact the film is only now entering pre-production with the possibility it won't be released until at least 2007 or even later. --PTSE 01:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- I've removed it from the filmography (really, anything under that section should absolutely be 100% fact (in other words, she's signed up, and filming has begun or is imminent)). I inserted a minor blurb in her career about it, using the killermovies.com link as a source. I'll confess to not being particularly thrilled with that as a source either (noting again that it's from 2003, surely we would have heard more by now if it was going to happen). —Locke Cole • t • c 02:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks. I've left a message for the user who added the entry --PTSE 21:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Picture issues, again
Maybe it should be discussed AGAIN? Personally, I think the magazine cover is fair use and is a better picture than the Jacket screenshot, though I'm not opposed to just using a different picture all together. We have been going through a few too many pictures though I think. AriGold 17:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- That screenshot is a horrible pic. Keep the magazine picture up. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.201.180.226 (talk • contribs) 10:00, January 6, 2006 (UTC)
- Actually the magazine picture is the horrid one, heh. The screenshot is a lot better IMO. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- I was the one who originally uploaded the TATLER magazine pic (to replace the ugly ELLE pic), so I don't really have anything against it. But many weeks ago, someone deleted it saing it wasn't fair use, (I'm not sure if it is or if it isn't, but I don't care to argue about it.) However, I don't like magazine pics because of all the texts etc, and they always look to styled and fake.. so right now I think the the jacket screen shot is good, and I think she looks beautiful in it, in a natural way. I think we should keep it for now. (PS. i think the king arthur axe pic is the greatest, but it should not be used as opening-pic.) —Bronks 6 january 2006.
- Actually the magazine picture is the horrid one, heh. The screenshot is a lot better IMO. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Vanity Fair cover
Interesting photo of Keira for the new cover of Vanity Fair magazine. An article appears on MSNBC (with the magazine cover today) about her and several other acresses posing nude for the issue. --StuffOfInterest 18:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Trivia
Actually, Trivia sections are encyclopedic. We used to have a lot more of them, but most have been deleted, and eventually we won't have any. It's certianly irrelevant that she can play music with her teeth, or whatever. JackO'Lantern 04:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
- What does it mean anyway? Does she pick a guitar with one of her canines or is this some sort of whistling thing? It would be an interesting fact maybe if it made more sense. Dismas|(talk) 04:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Filmography table
What part of this edit was in accordance with what part of the Manual of Style? Personally, I think the order it uses (oldest first) makes sense, as it's the same order as an article as a whole. However, using row spans eliminates redundant information (repeated years) and, I think, makes the table more readable. Mairi 17:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
i changed it from this:
| Year | Title | Role | Other notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1999 | Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace | Sabé (queen's decoy) | |
| 2001 | The Hole | Frances 'Frankie' Almond Smith | |
| 2003 | Bend It Like Beckham | Juliette 'Jules' Paxton | |
| 2003 | Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl | Elizabeth Swann | |
| 2003 | Love Actually | Juliet | |
| 2004 | King Arthur | Guinevere | |
| 2004 | The Jacket | Jackie | |
| 2004 | Domino | Domino Harvey | |
| 2005 | Pride and Prejudice | Elizabeth Bennet | Academy Award nomination - "Best Actress" |
| 2005 | Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest | Elizabeth Swann | Post-Production |
| 2006 | Silk | Helene Joncour | Filming |
| 2007 | Pirates of the Caribbean 3 | Elizabeth Swann | Post-Production |
to this:
| Year | Title | Role | Other notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1999 | Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace | Sabé (queen's decoy) | |
| 2001 | The Hole | Frances 'Frankie' Almond Smith | |
| 2002 | Bend It Like Beckham | Juliette 'Jules' Paxton | |
| 2003 | Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl | Elizabeth Swann | |
| Love Actually | Juliet | ||
| 2004 | King Arthur | Guinevere | |
| 2005 | The Jacket | Jackie | |
| Domino | Domino Harvey | ||
| Pride and Prejudice | Elizabeth Bennet | Academy Award nomination - "Best Actress" | |
| 2006 | Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest | Elizabeth Swann | Post-Production |
| Silk | Helene Joncour | Filming | |
| 2007 | Pirates of the Caribbean 3 | Elizabeth Swann | Post-Production |
but i dont like it as it is much too difficult for an ordinary editor to understand the code of the second example, while the first is simple and straightforward, and can be read left-to-right, line-by-line, by the blind. Catherine breillat 17:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Her name in other languages
Can someone explain the point of having her name as it's spelled in other languages? This really confuses me as to why this one person's article needs this info. Dismas|(talk) 20:53, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, the whole thing is stupid. No other people-article has that, why this?Bronks.
- Basically agree JackO'Lantern 21:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
- Good, so I'll give it a couple days and if nobody objects, I'll take it out. Unless someone wants to be more bold. Dismas|(talk) 21:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
- I removed it now, it's been three days. Bronks 14 april 2006.
Good article
This article is really close. It just needs a better introduction per WP:LEAD. I'm not failing it because it's that close, but someone needs to write a broader introduction. I also helped out by adding a biography infobox. - Phorque (talk · contribs) 20:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
- How about the intro I just added? Mad Jack O'Lantern 20:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
- Yep, that'll do. Try to continue improving the intro to three paragraphs and whatnot as per the WP:LEAD guide. - Phorque 05:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Hmm
Is it just me, or did this news tidbit get its info directly from here?[7] (I mean the bottom three paragraphs, near identical to ours). No complaints, though. :) Mad Jack O'Lantern 04:13, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
English or British?
Let's settle this now.
- I say she is English, (just like Ewan McGregor is Scotish and Tom Jones is Welsh). Bronks 29 April 2006
- Any person born/raised/etc. in London, England, who has not explicitly taken on other citizenship, is English. It doesn't matter who your ancestors were or were your grandmother came from. Mad Jack O'Lantern 18:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- Why not British? It covers all>? --Robdurbar 22:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- But it is not right. It's almost like saying Scandinavian. It's so wrong when you can say: Danish, or Swedish or Norwegian. Bronks 23:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- Exactly. Or call a Canadian a "North American". Mad Jack O'Lantern 01:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- The fact is the nationality of people who live in England is British and a large amount of people in England do not identify as English, which is often associated with far right racist groups. Arniep 23:31, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- You are talking the biggest load of rubbish I have ever had the misfortune to hear. When you say "far right racist groups", most people would think of the British National Party. In addition, your claim that a "large amount of people in England" don't indentify as English is simply incorrect, more and more now do and to say otherwise without evidence is utter claptrap!--Berks105 10:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- The fact is the nationality of people who live in England is British and a large amount of people in England do not identify as English, which is often associated with far right racist groups. Arniep 23:31, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Exactly. Or call a Canadian a "North American". Mad Jack O'Lantern 01:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- But it is not right. It's almost like saying Scandinavian. It's so wrong when you can say: Danish, or Swedish or Norwegian. Bronks 23:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- So in other words, you're saying we shouldn't call anyone "English", but why not go ahead and call people Irish, Scottish or Welsh, right? Mad Jack O'Lantern 23:45, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Irish Scottish and Welsh identity don't tend to have the racist connections that English does which puts off a lot of people with significant non English ancestry identifying as such. Arniep 00:05, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oh, of course, the infamous racist connections that "English" has. What is it with all these opinions of yours regarding people's identifications with ethnicity, nationality, etc.? They are completely unsubstantiated, irrelevant, and pointless to mention. And of course, some people can be very offended by a comment like the one you just made about the English. Mad Jack O'Lantern 05:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- I am one of the people who takes great offence at the "racist connections" of English. It is complete and utter rubish. Need I remind you that that it is the British National Party! --Berks105 10:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- I think you both need to read WP:CIVIL. Many ethnic minorities do not wish to identify as English, i.e. Black British, British Jews, British Asian etc. If you don't like that that's fine. Arniep 14:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- I am one of the people who takes great offence at the "racist connections" of English. It is complete and utter rubish. Need I remind you that that it is the British National Party! --Berks105 10:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oh, of course, the infamous racist connections that "English" has. What is it with all these opinions of yours regarding people's identifications with ethnicity, nationality, etc.? They are completely unsubstantiated, irrelevant, and pointless to mention. And of course, some people can be very offended by a comment like the one you just made about the English. Mad Jack O'Lantern 05:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Irish Scottish and Welsh identity don't tend to have the racist connections that English does which puts off a lot of people with significant non English ancestry identifying as such. Arniep 00:05, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- I must i have to disagree that "English" is ever a racist issue. In fact i think it is the phrase Anglo-Saxon, which although americans seem comfortable in using (eg in the acronym WASP) does hold BNP/NF connotations for me. Personally i hate these topics. My opinion is that it's best to be as specific as possible. Either we describe her as English, or make sure the aticle mentions that her brithplace is in England. The best thing to do to stop further arguments would be support it with a link to an interview where she refers to herself as English (even if we think that makes her a racist...) Amo 14:01, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Well I acknowledge that some people may not be aware of it, but racist groups have been associated with the English flag and expressions of Englishness. I quote from the talk page of English nationalism: "In fact ethnic minorities in England almost always refer to themselves as "British-", and "St George's Day and sporting victories are the only times that England's flag can be waved without accusations of racism.". A quote from [8] "In such circumstances, nationalism and patriotism are likely to be contested. To many English eyes the former has been appropriated by the far, racist right. For them, the cross of St George is truly a tainted symbol and they want no truck with it.". Arniep 14:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
I cannot believe the audacity of some of the comments I have read, the term English refers to the English people or those resident to England. Miss Knightly I am sure would consider herself English and not WELSH!!! after all. She is an English actress, as Sean Connery was a Scottish Actor, yet no one has said he’s racist! Now stop this ruddy bickering and accept FACT!
- Racist groups have been associated with almost every flag. The person who needs to read the civility policy is the person who makes comments like "Irish Scottish and Welsh identity don't tend to have the racist connections that English", not the person who tells that person to shut up. Mad Jack O'Lantern 18:18, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- No, sorry I was absolutely correct in saying that the reason many ethnic minorities identify as British not English is the perceived racist connections that english identity have been suspected to have per the quotes I posted and the many further articles and discussions that can be found on the internet. If you think that it is ever acceptable to tell people to shut up if you disagree with them I suggest you do have a reread of the WP:CIVIL policy. Arniep 18:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Arniep your arrogance is amazing, you lecture someone about their conduct, and yet it is you who is telling people (offering ludicrus reasons) that not only does english nationality not exist but it is a racist identity. the reason that ethnic minorities identify with british is much to do with the fact that england is not allowed a civic identity, however scotland has its own library, museum, governmental departments, newspapers, tv stations etc they are also allowed to called themselves scottish and fly their flag proudly and so they should. migrants are left in no doubt about what country they are in. newly arrived migrants into england are told they are british, every institution around them is british, how often are they aware they are even in england. i do except your point about non white citizens often shying away from english identity and this is something we should work hard at changing, but it is not as absolute as you like to make out. what are these 'racist connections' you love to mention, the only 'racist' group of any kind is the vile bnp and you certainly wont find any references to england there, they are commited to the UK, hence BNP! if you have a personal hatred and misguided view of england and its people that is your issue, but please stop these nonsenscial arguements. --Berks105 19:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry my reasons are not ludicrous as I set out above with quotes from this and other sites. I never said English identity doesn't exist for some people I am just saying it's blanket use is problematic as many people in England do not identify as English, but British. There are many articles and commentary that exist on the internet linking English nationalism with racism, it's quite easy to find through a search engine. Arniep 21:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- you could type nationalism into a search engine and it would come up with 'racism' for all sorts of nationality that is what is known as the downside of the internet. if you really think that your 2 quotes above validate your claim your much mistaken, i have seen the 'St George's Day and sporting victories are the only times that England's flag can be waved without accusations of racism' quote before and it is said on a cynical not factual basis bemoaning people like you. as for the other quote do you really imagine that substanciates your claim? it is not fact just an opinion. you are clutching at straws finding ways to continue your arguement. take at look at racist nationalism around the world, and then compare that to your supposed 'racist connections' in england, where are the racist attacks in the name of england, the organised racist political groups, where is the xenophobic media(england doesnt even have its own newspaper) and just where is the support for ethnic racism within the public? there is no comparison to some other areas of the world. have you by now realised why 'sporting events' are the only time you can wave an english flag, because you are not allowed to any other time. this is to protect the existence of britain more than anything else. wales/scotland have never as a nation recognised themselves as britain(why should they?) so if the english people stop thinking of themselves as british the union ends. this opinion is now changing with scotland/wales/nireland all keen on self governance. if england is allowed a civic identity then arriving migrants will begin to see the english identity they can associate with, they cannot associate with something that is only allowed to exist in sporting events. perhaps we can agree to disagree, but you must appreciate that the sort of thing you have been saying about english identity would not be tolerated if it were another nationality, you might even be called racist!--86.3.115.169 00:03, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry my reasons are not ludicrous as I set out above with quotes from this and other sites. I never said English identity doesn't exist for some people I am just saying it's blanket use is problematic as many people in England do not identify as English, but British. There are many articles and commentary that exist on the internet linking English nationalism with racism, it's quite easy to find through a search engine. Arniep 21:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Arniep your arrogance is amazing, you lecture someone about their conduct, and yet it is you who is telling people (offering ludicrus reasons) that not only does english nationality not exist but it is a racist identity. the reason that ethnic minorities identify with british is much to do with the fact that england is not allowed a civic identity, however scotland has its own library, museum, governmental departments, newspapers, tv stations etc they are also allowed to called themselves scottish and fly their flag proudly and so they should. migrants are left in no doubt about what country they are in. newly arrived migrants into england are told they are british, every institution around them is british, how often are they aware they are even in england. i do except your point about non white citizens often shying away from english identity and this is something we should work hard at changing, but it is not as absolute as you like to make out. what are these 'racist connections' you love to mention, the only 'racist' group of any kind is the vile bnp and you certainly wont find any references to england there, they are commited to the UK, hence BNP! if you have a personal hatred and misguided view of england and its people that is your issue, but please stop these nonsenscial arguements. --Berks105 19:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- No, sorry I was absolutely correct in saying that the reason many ethnic minorities identify as British not English is the perceived racist connections that english identity have been suspected to have per the quotes I posted and the many further articles and discussions that can be found on the internet. If you think that it is ever acceptable to tell people to shut up if you disagree with them I suggest you do have a reread of the WP:CIVIL policy. Arniep 18:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- I've edited the article adding an interview where she refers to herself as English. In this interview [9], around about the 12th paragraph, it has some good stuff on her her Englishness, but it doesn't contain direct quotes containing the word "English", so i thought it better not to link it as a souce. The article also interweaves the use of the term British, which is pretty realistic for anyone who comes from a country in the UK.Oh, and can someone archive part of this talk page - it's getting huge. Amo 00:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC)