Jump to content

Talk:Paul Bettany

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

English-American

[edit]

as he has made his home and family in America, and choosen to become American to vote, it seems he should be listed as also American Sanbear (talk) 13:50, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As there hasn't been any objections on the talk page, I'm guessing this is good to go Sanbear (talk) 13:37, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't exactly an isolated example... Lars Ulrich is a Danish musician, and Russell Crowe is a New Zealand actor; despite both having lived in other countries for most of their lives, we don't call them Danish-American or New Zealand-Australian. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 14:07, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's not quite the same at all. In Russel Crowe's article, the lese doesn't mention his nationality. With regards to Lars Ulrich, he's not American, and doesn't have American citizenship, so it would be improper to call him American. Paul Bettany went out of his way to get a second nations citizenship in order to participate in their political system. It is not a stretch to say he should have American in the lede Sanbear (talk) 16:56, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think a more pertinent example would be Andrew Garfield, who is described as an English and American actor. I do not think that two people ganging up on a user is very collegial Sanbear (talk) 23:05, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Or of course, Angela Lansbury who is described in the lede with three citizenships. Why is Paul special that he can't have his citizenship put in the lede? Sanbear (talk) 23:14, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So you didn't read WP:UKNATIONALS. No policy or guideline specifies that the first sentence must contain the subject's citizenship. The status quo uses "English". There's no consensus to support your proposed change. KyleJoantalk 03:04, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did read UK nationals. Please assume good faith. That was my rationale for excluding his citizenship outright from the lede. Sanbear (talk) 06:39, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would partially agree here. This would warrant him being called an "American and English" actor. He's been in the US for 20 years, married an American, and been in like 30 movies since living in the US (triple the amount he was in while in the UK). This guy is certainly an American actor also. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:52, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't have a preferred description, I'm finding that most reliable sources (published following his announcement that he had become a US citizen) describe him as "English"[1][2][3][4][5][6][7] or "British"[8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17] with no mention of his US ties. KyleJoantalk 04:30, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is actually another problem now that i think about it. We cannot use something like English-American as they are apples and oranges. That would be used for nations and England is not a nation. It would be "British and American" or British-American actor as the Encyclopedia Britannica uses. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:31, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think either it's gone from the lede, or we go with "English and American" actor. To imply he is solely English is wrong, and to imply he is only American is of course wrong. Nothing wrong with how it was handled in the Eddie Redgrave or Angela Lansbury articles. Sanbear (talk) 06:38, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Encyclopædia Britannica is a low-quality tertiary source per WP:BRITANNICA, so its description of Bettany does not warrant a lot of weight in determining what this article should do. I support the status quo or "British". Unless there is a consensus to change the status quo, there should not be any changes to the description at this time. KyleJoantalk 06:49, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per your link that is not really true. It is simply a tertiary source, not a low-quality tertiary source. It says "Most editors prefer reliable secondary sources." Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:20, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The thing about the status quo in this case is the facts changed after the article was begun. He was not an American before the 2016 election, and became one. When new information comes in, we should take that into consideration. If we never update the status quo, we're left with Queen Elizabeth the 2nd is the current Monarch of The UK. Things change. Sanbear (talk) 07:55, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Fyunck(click): That was my bad. Encyclopædia Britannica is not a low-quality source. It's mid-quality at worst. That said, the lack of consensus about its reliability tells us that it is not automatically reliable and remains compatible with my point about its content's weight.
@Sanbear: And that is why I provided articles published after he became a US citizen. The sources took his citizenship into consideration and still mostly wrote "British" and "English". Disputed things change when there is a consensus to change them. KyleJoantalk 08:05, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder how many of those sources got no further than reading the lede of this article 😉. We should strive to be correct. In this case, we're disregarding half of this person's citizenship, and their own volition in becoming a citizen, to keep the status quo. They changed the status quo by changing their circumstances.
The fact remains he is British and American. Sanbear (talk) 08:11, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It would be nice sometimes but the fact is we have verifiability not truth. I'm not sure what the answer is here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:49, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But we can verify with secondary sources he has American citizenship. I properly sourced my edit to add he's american. Sanbear (talk) Sanbear (talk) 22:19, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just because a person has dual citizenship doesn't automatically make them country1-country2. Italian-American is someone who has full or partial Italian ancestry, and uses it to describe themselves. You can have Spanish-American as an American who's ethnicity derives from a Spanish speaking nation. It can be very convoluted. We also bump up against MOS:CITIZEN where is says "Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless relevant to the subject's notability. Similarly, neither previous nationalities nor the country of birth should be mentioned in the lead unless relevant to the subject's notability." This same MOS section gives two examples that apply here:
  • Arnold Schwarzenegger (born July 30, 1947) is an Austrian and American actor, film producer, businessman, retired professional bodybuilder and politician. For a politician, dual citizenship can be a political issue, so it is important to be clear and avoid ambiguity. The lead sentence here is not about ethnicity ("Austrian-American") or the country of birth ("Austrian-born American"), but rather about dual citizenship.
and
  • Peter Lorre (June 26, 1904 – March 23, 1964) was a Hungarian and American actor. This is an example of a person who established a career in Europe as a Hungarian, then emigrated to the United States and was naturalized and continued his career, and is thus known as both a Hungarian actor and as an American actor. The use of and again prevents the introduction of ethnicity or birth.
So British-American is certainly not proper for this lead. He would be "a British and American actor" per our MOS guidelines, if it can be sourced and consensus can be reached. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:18, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hiya, I offered British and American or English and American as a compromise ages ago, similar to what Eddie Redgrave article does. I think that would be perfectly reasonable and verifiable and in line with what all the other articles do. I think the main concern 4TheWynn has is the inclusion of his American citizenship. I think that it's pertinent information. Please forgive the formatting, on the train! Sanbear (talk) 07:03, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also it might behoove us all to refamilarize ourselves with WP:OWN Sanbear (talk) 08:57, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, Sanbear, it would behoove you to refamiliarise yourself (if you've even familiarised yourself at all) with WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 12:04, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, an interesting read is WP:DONTREVERT where we should be biasing towards change and not the status quo. There is nothing argumentative or controversial about verifiable facts. They are just facts, like gravity is 9.8m/s^2. Sanbear (talk) 16:24, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Should the opening statement read English, English and American actor, or British or British and American actor?

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Paul Bettany is a dual citizen of the United Kingdom and the United States of America. Should the opening of the article read English, English and American, or British and American actor? Sanbear (talk) 13:18, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • If he just happened to have US citizenship, say because of birth, that wouldn't bear mention. However, it seems that he sought it out deliberately, and has substantial ties to the US including residence and family there. Therefore, he should be referred to as "British and American", as he is in fact both. (Not "English", as that is not a nationality; the nationality is "British".) Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:34, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • British or English per my responses above. KyleJoantalk 16:41, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bettany is an English actor. English people are British; not all British people are English. There is no need to include his dual UK/US citizenship in the intro sentence. That info is already in the infobox, and can be included in the text below, for example in the "Personal life" section, if someone finds it helpful or necessary to explain that status. Furthermore, I do not see why the fact that "English" is not a designation of citizenship should have a bearing on whether or not he should be identified as English. Eric talk 20:46, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "I do not see why the fact that "English" is not a designation of citizenship should have a bearing on whether or not he should be identified as English."
    Because the Manual of Style specifically prohibits it: "Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless relevant to the subject's notability" MOS:ETHNICITY. Pistongrinder (talk) 19:57, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:UKNATIONALS clearly states there is no consensus on how this guideline should be applied to people from the United Kingdom, so there is no prohibition. If "English" is an ethnicity and not a nationality, are you saying BLPs should not describe subjects as "English", "Scottish", or "Welsh"? KyleJoantalk 20:40, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • British and American MOS:CITIZEN says In cases of public or relevant dual citizenship, or a career that spans a subject's emigration, the use of the word and reduces ambiguity. Dobblesteintalk 21:27, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have yet to see a guideline that calls for indicating a bio subject's nationality in the intro sentence. Is the underlying assumption for this discussion that nationality -- as opposed to geographical or cultural origin, for example -- must be established in the first sentence of the article? Eric talk 07:55, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is something I'm wondering as well. UKNATIONALS says we neither encourage nor discourage "British" over "English", "Scottish", and "Welsh". The interpretations of NATIONALITY here asks us to disregard that and prioritize "British" for dual citizens. This view is unsupported by both UKNATIONALS and NATIONALITY, as the latter merely contains examples of how citizenships are written when we choose to include them. It does not say subjects with dual citizenship must be described with one citizenship (or both or neither) in the first sentence. KyleJoantalk 08:20, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think if we include English or British at all, it would not make sense to exclude his other nationality. He is in fact both British and American. The fact that he is a dual citizen of Britain and the US would make sense to call him. British and American, rather than English and New Yorker, which would be the equivalent. Sanbear (talk) 08:24, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sanbear, you've already voiced their opinion several times; let others have their say, even if they have opposing views. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 13:37, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi 4TheWynne, I respect your opinion. Was just asking for clarification. Cheers. Sanbear (talk) 14:47, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given that he is part of the American filmography, he is probably and British-American actor in that sense. But in my opinion, the sources should say that, but as far I can see, the sources mostly say that he is a English or British actor. So my opinion is that he is British actor. With good argumentation, I can change my mind and say that he is an English actor, because I don't know if this is the context in the UK. That is, whether famous people are divided into Scots, English, etc., or whether they are all defined as British. Mikola22 (talk) 17:34, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • British and American. I was genuinely surprised to see that this was an RfC because the MOS is so crystal clear on this issue, but I decided to check out the discussion anyway, and here we are!
It appears two discussions are circulating:
1. The use of "English" or "British" and
2. Adding "American" to either English/British.
For the first point, I cite MOS:ETHNICITY: "Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless relevant to the subject's notability." And while the discussion above notes the WP:UKNATIONALS essay as an authority on the subject, that essay states, "A UK passport describes its holder as a 'British citizen'. According to British nationality law there are six types of British nationality of which the main one is British citizenship." There's just no good argument to identify him as English over British. I might argue, after reviewing the essay from above, that it gets stickier if Bettany were Irish and British. But he's not. British, it is.
For the second point, I cite MOS:NATIONALITY: "In cases of public or relevant dual citizenship, or a career that spans a subject's emigration, the use of the word and reduces ambiguity." Bettany has dual citizenship, and while he began his acting career in England and began his notoriety there, he clearly grew his notoriety in Hollywood beginning with A Knight's Tale. Hence, Bettany has "a career that spans a subject's emigration." So including American is a necessity.
So there we have it: British and American actor Paul Bettany. Just like Arnold Schwarzenegger, who is referenced in the Manual of Style as a best practice. Pistongrinder (talk) 20:56, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will ask again: Does any guideline call for nationality to be established in the first sentence of the article? Eric talk 21:42, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Eric:Absolutely MOS does. For biographies we have MOS:OPENPARABIO. It says quite clearly we need Name, Dates of birth and death, Context (location, nationality, etc.), and two more items. Plus every article has it, so we have longstanding consensus on consistency within the encyclopedia. We'd have never-ending edit wars if it was purposely left out. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:58, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PARABIO says nationality is usually stated. Anya Taylor-Joy's excludes her Argentinian, British, and US citizenship altogether. Albert Einstein's describes him as "German-born". Tony Cliff, Otto von Habsburg, Mona Kareem, Robert E. Lee, Karl Marx, Garry Davis, Abdul Nacer Benbrika, Mike Gogulski, etc. While nationality in the first sentence is common, the straightforward answer to the question is no. KyleJoantalk 23:34, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It also says that name and birthday are usually stated. Except in rare instances, nationality is pretty much always used. With Taylor-Joy, no one can pin down what it is since sources are all over the place. Most of those you mentioned have extenuating circumstances, especially general Robert E Lee. It is not mandatory that we include his name, birthday, and nationality in the lead... but MOS says that is what is normally done. There needs to be damned good reasons why it should be left out, because otherwise the straightforward answer would be yes. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:32, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The value of one's nationality is not comparable to that of their name. Name = article title. Every source about a subject contains their name. Neither can be said about nationality (but if we'd like to dive deeper into that, I'd like to see the list of sources that describes Bettany as both "British" and "American" other than Britannica). There are countless examples of birth date omissions. The guideline also says key accomplishments are usually stated. I almost never see actors' articles do this. Where are the calls to include defining awards (e.g., Oscars) in the first sentence? KyleJoantalk 00:59, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I concur on the importance of name yet it's under the same usually that you quoted. Same with birthdate which is probably less important than their nationality. Part of the notability accomplishment is the fact they are a notable actor. I quite often see accomplishments in the lead, but they rarely fit in the first sentence. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:06, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @KyleJoan as @4TheWynne admonished me earlier, "you've already voiced their opinion several times; let others have their say, even if they have opposing views. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 13:37, 24 October 2023 (UTC)"[reply]
Sanbear (talk) 10:15, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Before this comment, Fyunck(click) and I had each written four responses, yet you're addressing only me. I had deleted (what was to be) my last response to suggest I was done commenting five hours before you unnecessarily inserted yourself into a good-faith conversation. On top of that, you've shown signs of taking disagreements personally ("ganging up", "not necessarily acting in good faith while reverting"). Due to this, I will not directly engage with you any further. Do report me to WP:ANI if you believe my conduct has been inappropriate. Thanks. KyleJoantalk 11:08, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, sorry, I looked at lunch. Regardless, I was just pointing out that it is apparently bad form to debate on this forum your point once you've made it. I disagree with that opinion, and think it's fine, but only if all sides are allowed to. I'm just politely reminding everyone of the remarks that asked us not to restate your opinion after you've made it and to let others give their opinion, even if you disagree with it. I hope you have a good day! Sanbear (talk) 12:23, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sanbear, stop being obnoxious. I suggested that you allow others to have their say because you were bobbing up only when people disagreed with your opinion, seemingly to shoot their comments down (which is exactly what you've done here, too) and influence the result of this RfC; these editors were having an actual, good-faith discussion, and you've just inserted yourself and singled out the editors (you call this a typo?) whose opinions differ from yours, which is just poor. Start contributing to this discussion positively or take a step back and let it play out. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 12:27, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We seem to have gone a little off-topic. But, as long as we're here, no editor should be barred from commenting as long as those comments are civil and motivated by good intent. I haven't seen anything to the contrary so far. Pistongrinder (talk) 22:22, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • British and American. English and American also acceptable. He has notable activities in both countries and MOS:CONTEXTBIO is clear on this issue. We would need a very strong justification to go against the guidance in MOS for almost any situation and there is no reason to ignore the MOS in this case. Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:34, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • English and American actor given his dual citizenship and activities within both countries. Using "British" would be vague in comparison when that term also encompasses the Scottish, Welsh, and Northern Irish (aka Scotch-Irish). I'm glad Eric correctly pointed out how not all British people are English. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 12:01, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Except he doesn't have English citizenship, nor is England a country as in a nation. It would be similar to an English born New York actor. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:47, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The British consider England a country. It is a convention they use that we may honor in Wikipedia articles if agreed to by editor consensus fo the article. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography#cite note-1. Geraldo Perez (talk) 23:20, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That is because the UK decerns between a nation/state and country, and the US does not. The USA is a country but England is not close to being on par with that. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:01, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems people are getting lost in the weeds as regards definitions of nationality and citizenship, and with respect to the importance of these being established in the opening sentence. Bettany's current citizenship notwithstanding, he is English, England is a country, and, as the country of England is currently part of Britain, referring to him as English is more specific than referring to him as British while still inherently conveying the information that he is British. Eric talk 01:39, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You could be more specific by mentioning his city also. That doesn't matter. What is not really good at all is, when you mention two entities, that they not be apples and oranges. You would not say that he lived in Mexico, Brazil, and England. It would be exceedingly odd terminology. If England is a country, then the United States is not, since they are not the same thing. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:02, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The British use country in a different way than the rest of the world. For us we are a nation of four countries, much like The US is a nation of 50 states. To me, in Wikipedia I prefer British over Scottish, Welsh, Northern Irish or English, but that's because most people don't realise the different way that British use the word country than many other English speaking countries. As we are meant to be an encyclopedia for all I would prefer British over English to try to make it clearer for people, but I understand than in the UK they refer to England as a country. Please forgive if this comment is overstepping my bounds here. Sanbear (talk) 11:03, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • English, he is not reliably called American in different articles, and in either case it's not of central importance to the subject.--Ortizesp (talk) 06:31, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, can we please kill the idea that English (Sc/We/N.Ir) is an ethnicity. Humza Yousaf this guy is a Scot, there are black and Jewish people ordinarily described as/self-describing as 'English' (Sc/We/N.Ir). These 'national' identities often fulfil a similar function to ethnicity, and sometimes have an ethnic component, but they mainly represent a cultural identity - how you see yourself and/or are seen generally. Sean Connery always identified himself - and was identified as a Scot, Charlie Chaplin was always referred to as being 'English'. The (En/Sc/We/N.Ir) - British conundrum tends to especially rear its head in acting/cultural fields, where such perceptions often matter. Pincrete (talk) 06:43, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not that it's ethnic... it's apples and oranges. When side by side you don't say English and American... they are not even remotely in the same category. You may call him an English actor or a British actor or an American Actor, but when next to each other it should be British and American actor for the sake of our Wikipedia readers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:54, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I understood that, 'English' would be 'identity' whereas 'American' would be citizenship and using the two alongside each other would be anomalous. I was responding to some above that argue that 'English' should be treated as an ethnicity. Pincrete (talk) 07:11, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Fyunck(click), I would suggest to you that not all readers -- I'd say very few readers -- are constrained by the categorical restrictions you assign to adjectival combinations such as "English and American". Eric talk 14:43, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I'm coming onto the side of Fyunck on this. English isn't a citizenship, and not really a recognised nationality outside the UK, except for in certain sporting events. I doubt we're going to solve this tricky wiki-wide issue just here on one RFC though. Sanbear (talk) 08:12, 14 November 2023 (UTC) did not realise I wasn't signed in.[reply]
  • British and American - per wikipedia MOS. — Sadko (words are wind) 13:16, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • English, I've hesitated over this and considered previous similar cases. All the WP:RS that I've been able to read on the page appear to call Bettany 'English'. Some of them happily document when he became a US citizen, and why he did so and don't see any contradiction between the two facts. Of course his two citizenships should be recorded in the infobox and text, and the when and why he became a US citizen in text. I presume the description 'English' by RS is 'perceived identity', rather than 'literal citizenship', but whatever it is, it's how he is described. From jaundiced experience of umpteen RfCs, I know this opening descriptor to be problematic. Sometimes we opt for someone being a 'Jewish' writer , (who's actually from Eastern Europe and lived in US and obviously not Jewish by citizenship), sometimes an an 'Irish writer' , (from before Ireland was a state). In the last resort we can only rely on WP:RS and AFAI can see, that leads to 'English'. This already happens with Alfred Hitchcock, who is described as 'English' despite working and living much/most of his creative life in the US. An alternative is T. S. Eliot, which avoids any opening 'nationality' descriptor but gives his dual citizenship in text and infobox. Pincrete (talk) 09:54, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Would it make sense to remove it all from the lede then? Just, an actor. No national identities given? Sanbear (talk) 11:37, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Pincrete, but I think Sanbear's idea is worth considering. In the Sanbear approach, maybe something along the lines of ...is a film and stage actor who began his career in London., for example. Eric talk 12:17, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was responding directly to the choices given, but something along the lines of Sanbear or Eric seem equally good, if not better. Clarity about his 'life story' seems more important than whose citizenship he holds. Pincrete (talk) 12:27, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'm not sure if my suggestion muddies the water a bit or helps. To me it is surprising information that he is American, hence my inclusion the opening. In films he is usually as English as Churchill (who of course was also American!  :) ). I'm not sure if it would be another RFC to ask that question, or we can discuss it here. Sanbear (talk) 08:00, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think some other articles have done just that. We could even say something like "Paul Bettany is a multinational actor." Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:11, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • English actor is fine because (a) that is what parts he plays and he is thus notable as English; (b) that (or "British") is how RS describe him; and (c) that is the long-standing status quo. It's too long to have the accuracy of "English born British-American actor" or "British-American known for playing English roles". I do see he intentionally got US citizenship in 2017 and voted for the first time in 2020, but I also see him voicing that London is his home as late as 2017 in the Telegraph. Also I see sources mention him as "English actor" by WSJ, IMDB and "British" by the Telegraph, Rotten tomatoes, The Standard, or The Telegraph. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 22:34, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Step cousin relationship not notable

[edit]

Stop cousin is the realm of certain porn publications and is not important to anything Bettany did. Would need to show it impacted his life in some manner beyond some connection his grandparents made to be something that goes in the article. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:19, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Paul_Bettany&oldid=1257250958"