Jump to content

Talk:Tony Scott/Archive 2

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

RfC: Should Tony Scott be described as a British-Born director?

Is how a media describes an individual or event, used as a source, irrelevant or relevant as a guide to editing a wiki entry? and should Tony Scott be described as a 'British-Born' director? Erzan (talk) 05:15, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

  • English, I would say no because it's a fact of where someone is born, whereas the media will say/have said both british and english to describe him so I don't think we should go off solely which one is reported more by the media. I'd personally use English instead of british because "When used in a historical context, the term British people refers to the ancient Britons" and British could mean a wider geographical area whereas English would mean solely from England. Ridley Scott says English as well.
Taken from British people:

British people (also referred to as the British, Britons, or informally as Brits or Britishers) are citizens or natives of the United Kingdom, Crown Dependencies, British Overseas Territories, and their descendants.[23][24][25] British nationality law governs modern British citizenship and nationality, which can be acquired, for instance, by descent from British nationals. When used in a historical context, the term British people refers to the ancient Britons, the indigenous inhabitants of Great Britain south of the Forth.[24]

Taken from English people:

The English are a nation and ethnic group native to England, who speak English. The English identity is of early mediaeval origin, when they were known in Old English as the Anglecynn. England is a country of the United Kingdom, and English people in England are British Citizens.

Just my two cents :3 daintalk   20:09, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Big-endian v. Little-endian value OK -- the man was born in "England" making him "English." He also is of Scottish ancestry (d'oh) meaning we could also call him "Scottish." He is a citizen of the UK, which makes him "British." We have no record of his mother's maiden name - so he could be almost anything. When in doubt, use the least restrictive category which clearly applies to the person - which in this particular case is "British." Unless we want the Scots to show up <g>. Collect (talk) 12:09, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
"There is no such country as England." I would like to point out that the first line of England is "England i/ˈɪŋɡlənd/ is a country that is part of the United Kingdom." In any case, I guess it should go off of Wikipedia:Nationality of people from the United Kingdom. daintalk   19:39, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
  • English, Born in England to English parents made him English, calling him English is specific IMO. As for the Russian poster who suggests England is not a country, well, I always enjoy people who openly display their ignorance as well as racism. Well done, sir.90.230.198.78 (talk) 07:42, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Taken from English people: The English are a nation and ethnic group native to England, who speak English. The English identity is of early mediaeval origin, when they were known in Old English as the Anglecynn. England is a country of the United Kingdom, and English people in England are British Citizens.

  • English, Labeling someone suggests a negative connotation. Calling someone something they are (in this case, English) is hardly labeling, let alone something negative. I say English.Vallonen (talk) 17:27, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
  • British English or British/English or British (English) He's undeniably both, it's just a matter of semantics about "nationality". Whichever we choose, it seems half of us won't like it. Having both is entirely accurate, verifiable and should make everyone happy (unless we choose to squabble about which descriptor appears first). InedibleHulk (talk) 20:27, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
  • English, Of the arguments you refer to, two are/should be, rendered invalid. So we're not talking about 50/50 here.

Vallonen (talk) 18:36, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

So these two long sections is what consensus looks like to you? Whatever. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:12, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Arguing here is pointless

The Opening Paragraph section of the Biography Manual of Style says: Ethnicity or sexuality should not generally be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. We're in agreement (I think) that "English" is referring to his ethnic nationality, not legal citizenship (since nobody is an English citizen). Scott's notability comes from making Hollywood movies, which is hardly relevant to England. WP:LOCALCONSENSUS is clear that we can't overrule the MoS from here, no matter how hard we argue. So it's basically settled, unless someone gets the MoS changed. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:23, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I’m aware of what the Paragraph says, and in no way is describing him as English in violation of said paragraph, as for his citizenship, its listed. Furthermore, no “emphasis” has been placed on him being English. I don’t see the violation. Lastly, If someone’s nationality is not to be listed, then indeed the MoS must be changed, else you (we) will find ourselves having to change thousands of wiki articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vallonen (talk • contribs) 01:25, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
By defining him as English before defining him as a director, we're placing major emphasis on his ethnicity (as much as for his claim to fame). The only way it could be more emphatic is if we said "English Tony Scott was a film director", or retitled the article. Most people's nationality is also their citizenship; OPENPARA clearly says citizenship should be there. Scott was undeniably a British citizen. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:47, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't see that at all. Scott was undeniably a British citizen, yes, he was also undeniably of English nationality. But again, no major emphasis is being placed on him being English. It is being mentioned. Not emphasised. At least not if we go by the definition of emphasised as it reads in the dictionary. Vallonen (talk) 02:36, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

My dictionary defines "emphasise" as "See emphasize" (bolded for emphasis). "Emphasis" is one we both have, and is defined (Merriam-Webster) as "a particular prominence given in reading or speaking to one or more words or syllables". Do we agree "English" was given particular prominence by being placed in the first sentence and defining the subject? InedibleHulk (talk) 03:22, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
I do not agree that saying "English" is giving it prominence, especially when it's mentioned once. daintalk   14:48, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Prominent = readily noticeable. Like, the first descriptor you'd see. Nothing to do with repetition. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:50, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
We will just have to disagree, no importance is given to him being English (Webster point 1a ) and no stress is placed on him being English either (Webster point 2) using your link as reference. Emphasising something "usually" means you either repeat or stress something, and I don’t see that being the case here.
Like I said above, "prominence" has nothing to do with repetion or stress. It's a placement thing. Which dictionary (if any) are you using? InedibleHulk (talk) 09:50, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
That aside, the issue appears to have been solved for now, we’ve reached a compromise which, if not to everyone’s liking, so at least one they could agree upon. Hopefully this means no more edit warring and no more conflicts. Vallonen (talk) 16:47, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, this works. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:50, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Jeez InedibleHulk, you seem to be the only person here still arguing that Tony Scott should not be called "English". It is SO redundant saying "a British director from England" when you can simply say "an English director" (as many other articles do) that it is actually a detraction from the quality of this article. The majority of people here seem to think "English" is preferable to "British", so could you just get over it and bow to the majority? Unless you have some agenda for fighting this one-man crusade? 151.225.56.91 (talk) 01:52, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

If by "still arguing", you mean "reached an agreement almost six months ago", then yes. And if the section above full of British and English votes suggested they mean they same thing, there was a consensus or that I'm on a one-man crusade, then yes, you'd be right. But in reality, this compromise wording stopped a long-running edit war, is consistent with policy and has seemed to be OK with both sides. Since October, one editor changed it in January, and then you did. Before October, we had revert wars like this and this giant argument (which I wasn't a part of). Pretty clear. As for redundant, your edit says he's an English director from England. No problem there? InedibleHulk (talk) 17:50, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

What on earth do you mean "an English director from England"? My edit said "an English director", period. Your "a British director from England" almost sounds as insanely redundant as "an English director from Britain". Above I count about 3 people in favour of "British", and 5 (including myself) in favour of "English". If it is such a gross and intolerable breach of Wikipedia policy, perhaps you'd like to explain why Tony's brother Ridley is introduced as an "English" director? Or why Sam Mendes, Richard Attenborough, Michael Apted or Michael Anderson (to name a few) are introduced as "English" too? Or why Peter Mullan, Kevin MacDonald or Andrew Black are introduced as "Scottish" directors, or Brian Kirk as "Northern Irish"? The answer is because it is not a breach, but perfectly acceptable. The different national identities of the UK are so individual that the umbrella term "British" is just not informative enough and is not accepted in many instances. And it is not the same as US states, because England, Scotland, Wales etc. are recognised as individual constituent countries of the UK. I think you're just taking advantage of the fact that few people seem inclined to stand up to your dictatorial rule over the Tony Scott article. 176.251.47.13 (talk) 18:45, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Here's your edit. There's a period, but it wasn't after "director". You can count what you'd like, consensus isn't established by tallying votes. Policy and guidelines come first. WP:OPENPARA is against emphasizing ethnicity, unless it's relevant to notability. In Ridley Scott, Mendes and Attenborough's cases, their Englishness is more relevant, since they've worked primarily in England, have won BAFTA awards and/or have English titles like Baron and Sir. Tony was a Hollywood guy who happened to be born in England. And there was no edit warring shitstorm necessitating a compromise. You can call me a dictator all you want, it doesn't change the comments directly above yours, saying "the issue appears to have been solved for now, we’ve reached a compromise which, if not to everyone’s liking, so at least one they could agree upon" or the cease in edit warring since this compromise had been reached. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:18, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
As for "British" not being informative enough, I agree. That's why the article specifies "from England". InedibleHulk (talk) 20:33, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Which, like I said, sounds as stupid and incompetently written as "an English director from Britain". I can't believe I'm having to point this out, but "English" denotes that he is also British, but "British" does not denote that's he's also English. And "a British director from England" implies that he is from England but is somehow not English, which is beyond weird considering that he was an Englishman. (Your justification of Ridley, Mendes and Attenborough's Englishness and how it does not apply to Tony is pure POV, by the way.) Your pedantic, one-man crusade is one thing, but when it starts to affect the quality and lucidity of an article, it becomes a serious problem. Just because you managed to wear down your opponents once before to get your own way does not mean you'll be able to impose your will forever. This issue will not go away as long as the opening line reads as it does. It happened before, it's happening now, and it will happen again. And you're not really one to lecture anybody on edit warring, as one look at your talkpage reveals you have a history of involvement in edit wars and have been warned to stop. 176.251.25.227 (talk) 22:07, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

All Englishmen are British citizens, but not all British citizens are Englishmen. What we have here points out his citizenship, then says where in the UK he is from. Yes, it's slightly awkward, but that's the price we've agreed to pay to stop having it switched between British and English many times a day. A fair price, which really doesn't affect the article quality nearly as much as you seem to want to think.
This "dictator" crap is getting old. I didn't "wear down my opponents". I offered a solution to a problem that had been going on without my involvement for weeks. One guy had some issues, and we came to a cordial understanding. Then that seemed cool with everyone for months. Suddenly you pop up, using two IP addresses which have contributed nothing but this argument, slinging mud and claiming to know what the consensus is. Yes, I've had some talkpage warnings on completely unrelated topics. And those issues have also since been amicably resolved through compromise.
Now, like the section header says, there's no point in arguing here. The Manual of Style says what it does. If you'd like to change it, argue there. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:39, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
I edited the lede per MOSBIO. Maybe add his birthplace futher into the article if required, but the MOSBIO is pretty clear here. --Malerooster (talk) 12:50, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Is there any specific part of MOSBIO you're referring to? Your edition goes against the "Location" bit, which says "In most modern-day cases this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident" and "Ethnicity or sexuality should not generally be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability". You may have a point, but until you can explain it clearly, I'm reverting. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:12, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi InedibleHulk, I usually stick to American bios, but did end up here. British vs English. Which is nationality and which is ethnicity? I do know that the whole British vs English in the lede is contentious. Has the project "standardized" on anything? I do remember the MOSBIO used to even mention this contention, but it looks like it went away. --Malerooster (talk) 17:23, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Its covered in the info box and also in the first section, not sure if its needed in the lede section, but certainly not in the lede sentence. --Malerooster (talk) 12:53, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
I've tried something new, putting birth and death locations alongside the dates. Perhaps this is more acceptable? InedibleHulk (talk) 17:20, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
I usually don't like this in the lede but whatever. You still reverted his nationality to British from English. Is there consensus here for that? I seems that most "English" people use that in their bios but I could be wrong. I don't really have a dog in this fight, I more into following the MOSBIO and having some "standardization" in these cases but do know that this isn't easy. --Malerooster (talk) 17:28, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm not fond of it, either, but figured you might be. Since you're not, I'll move it back. Not a compromise if nobody likes it. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:57, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Great. Looking at English directors, it looks like BOTH British AND English is used in the different ledes of the bios. uggh. --Malerooster (talk) 17:33, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
It's not as complicated as it seems at first glance. "British" can either refer to ethnicity/nationality or citizenship. In this case, it means citizenship, thus linked to United Kingdom instead of British people. A strictly geopolitical thing. "English" always refers to ethnicity, since England isn't a sovereign state and has has no citizens. Some people's ethnicity is significant to their notability. In those cases, MOSBIO says noting it in the opening is cool. But in Scott's case, virtually all his notability came from working in Hollywood, so, following the guideline, shouldn't be emphasized. In a perfect world, we wouldn't say "from England" at all. However, there were some tenacious edit warriors, both convinced we should either mention England or Britain. Often, they'd edit change just that word, leaving "an British" or "a English" for someone else to fix. So the compromise came about. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:54, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
I don't link birthplace and death place in the lede, but its better than saying "from England" at the end of the lede sentence. --Malerooster (talk) 18:47, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
I moved where he is from into the 2d sentence. Also, whats up with the subject's photo? He looks like he is stoned out of his sqwash :). --Malerooster (talk) 18:50, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
I like that edit. I think it addresses the "redundant" concern the IP had. Hopefully s/he does, too. But I'll change "is" to "was". I think we can all agree he's dead. As for the photo, it's sometimes hard to get a perfect picture that is also not copyrighted. Nothing wrong with being cheeched, though (if he is). InedibleHulk (talk) 19:01, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello again, InedibleHulk, it's the unregistered and therefore unworthy IP user again (whose IP address changes villainously whenever he switches between his work and home computer - which MUST be a sign of wickedness!) Please notice, however, that I have made no attempt at sock puppetry during this debate, and I think it's been pretty clear that you're dealing with one person. Jimmy Wales' proudest boast is that Wikipedia is the online encyclopaedia that "anyone" can contribute to, and that "the reader of an article can edit the text without needing approval, doing so anonymously or with a registered account", which you may want to take into account before you settle too comfortably on that high horse of yours.

As the article reads now, the "He was from England" bit stands out as more unnecessary than ever, especially since you insist that being "from England" had very little to do with his notability (though I feel that being English was the most notable aspect of his identity, and the most informative word to use). However, if you wish to take his connections to the USA into account, a better compromise that I have seen used elsewhere on Wikipedia might be "an English director with both British and American citizenship". It's not perfect, but it takes into account his legal national status (assuming he had dual citizenship) whilst not ignoring or pretending that he wasn't an English person.

This has proved to be a controversial issue though, and I am flummoxed as to why. Why is it so controversial for people from England to be introduced as "English" on Wikipedia, when it is so simple for all other UK nationals? If you're parents are Welsh or you were born in Wales, you're "Welsh", end of story. Scotland: you're "Scottish", end of story. Northern Ireland: you're "(Northern) Irish", end of story. England: you're ... "British"??? Kind of a double standard going on there; but it's up to the consensus what should be done about it. I've made my point and I don't want to embark on my own "one-man crusade" lol. 151.225.66.185 (talk) 17:53, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

You read a bit too much into the IP comment. You didn't read enough into the ethnicity shouldn't be emphasized unless relevant to notability comment. But you hit the nail on the head with the consensus thing. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:20, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
And we're not ignoring the fact that he was an Englishman. Just not giving it prominence. We also don't say "Tony Scott was a heterosexual film director", "Tony Scott was a suicidal film director" or "Tony Scott was a poorly-reviewed film director". InedibleHulk (talk) 20:27, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
"English" seems acceptable to the project, but so does "British". I also agree with the IP's assessment above that other UK nationals are noted as such, but is that otherstuffexists maybe? --Malerooster (talk) 22:01, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Again, read WP:OPENPARA. "English" is ethnicity, "British" is citizenship. Those other people are Scottish/Irish/English/Welsh because that's relevant to their notability. Tony Scott really has nothing notable to do with England, and his Englishness has nothing to do with his work. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:09, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

'....was a British film director and producer. He was from England....' Sounds a touch daft and is inconsistent with other Wiki articles. If he was Scottish, there wouldn't be an argument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.66.203 (talk) 22:19, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Hesitation

Is this a conflicting story, here it says he did hesitate.--Inayity (talk) 15:06, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on Tony Scott. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:53, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Mr

I have read over a thousand bio on Wikipedia, and never seen "Mr" used in the context I found here. It just clanged in my ears. So I removed it. I realize this bio is touchy, as attested by the "archiving" of commnets, and by the length of the first comment about calling him English, which goes on forever. So I thought I should post this. I believe this is a "minor edit", and did it only for consistency with the other bios on Wikipedia. Nick Beeson (talk) 12:10, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Photo of suicide bridge

The inclusion of a generic photo of the bridge from which Mr. Scott jumped is ridiculous and offensive. It adds nothing meaningful to the narrative. Nicmart (talk) 20:02, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tony_Scott/Archive_2&oldid=1157655758"