Talk:Ian McKellen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Former featured article Ian McKellen is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article Milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Good article Ian McKellen has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.
Main Page trophy

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 6, 2004.

Contents

[edit] Top

I cut He is known both for his professionalism and his ready wit, as evidenced by the quip above. No doubt he's a trouper, but as far as I know he's about as professional as a few million other actors. Markalexander100 09:33, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Photo

I see that this photo Image:IanMcKellen.0051.jpg has been bumped from the article. Such is life on the wiki, I suppose, but I wouldn't like it to get lost for ever: it was given to us expressly by Sir Ian's webmaster in response to a request for Wikipedia-compliant material. –Hajor 00:35, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

it was replaced with a non free image by User:DrBat on July 15, 2005 who is contesting my replacement of it with the new free one at Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2005_October_30#October_30. Maybe we could do a rotation of the two free images. Arniep 02:57, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Actually, the article's long enough to feature both fine project-compliant images: I've inserted the one above down in the filmography. What the article doesn't need, of course, is to replace either of those with a non-free photo. –Hajor 03:51, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
I agree with –Hajor, the article benefits from having both free images. I also agree that, having two free images, there is no need for any copyrighted material to illustrate Mr. McKellen's appearance. Jkelly 21:47, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
I also agree the article is long enough for two free images. I'm not sure I'd pick that pair in an ideal world (it would be nice to have a free young+old set or the like). But what we have is what we have... The IanMcKellen.0051.jpg image is a more intimate, although 'lower quality' image. I'm not sure exactly how to best fit it into the article. If there were more of a section on his personal life I'd say it should go there, not sure that it would be right to put it in the gay rights section. :) In any case, we do not need to use unfree images, consider that we have two reasonable free images which illustrate him just fine. --Gmaxwell 21:50, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Hi I moved the 2000 image to roughly fit in with his first major Hollywood role Apt Pupil in the filmography referencing the caption: "Sir Ian McKellen takes a day out at Universal Studios, Hollywood, April 2000. Although a veteran performer on both stage and screen, he has only recently taken up serious Hollywood roles.". Arniep 22:18, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nationality

Why is it that Sir Ian McKellan is down as British just because he has Scottish names? You can not say what nationality people are by their surname? My surname is Irish, but my family never lived in Ireland, they were from Cornwall. People like putting anyone from England down as English, but if you're from Scotland you are Scottish. This is clearly unfair to English people, and should stop. --82.4.86.73 22:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not about being fair. The fact is most English people regard British as their nationality and English as their ethnicity. It is just that Scottish and Welsh people have sought to divorce themselves from British, what they see as an English institution which ruled over and oppressed them. Arniep 02:56, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
You can not possibly say "most English people regard British as their nationality" is a fact, have you done research? My opinion would be that most people, certainly people I know, strive to point out the fact they are English not British! And with regards to the English ruling over the Scotish and Welsh I refer you to you to the West Lothian Question! --82.4.86.73 17:56, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Whether they regard their nationality as English or not, legally they are all British --TimPope 18:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes they are all legally British, but then so are Charlotte Church and Robert Carlyle, but if you put them as British they would be an uproar. Either anyone from Great Britain should be British, or we should have them as Welsh, Scottish and English. --82.4.86.73 18:42, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
I changed this, Church and Carlyle to British from England, Wales and Scotland respectively (by way of scientific experiment). Awaiting uproar... --TimPope 18:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
I think I like the idea, but I wonder how long it will last! --82.4.86.73 19:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
The Scot was the first ... --TimPope 23:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Haha, violates WP:POINT, but congratulations you made me laugh out loud on Wikipedia for the first time today :))) - FrancisTyers 23:53, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't see what that achieves really. It is accepted that Scottish people and Welsh people are described as such and that English people are generally described as British. If you don't believe me look in any other major reference work. Arniep 23:19, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
I looked in two: they both used English rather than British. There really is no such standard as you seem to believe. Anyway, wikipedia bases its policies and guidelines on WP:NPOV, and therefore what goes for the Scots and Welsh goes for the English. --TimPope 10:01, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Arrant nonsense. Scottish and Welsh are roughly equivalent in terms of informativeness; English is not. Mark1 11:27, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Admittedly Wordsworth and Siegfried Sassoon are described as English because the are both associated with very English writing. However, Ian McKellen is of close Scottish descent and is described as British in Britannica, not English. I know many people who are in ethnic minorities and are of mixed Scottish/Welsh/Irish ancestry who certainly do not accept the term English and would find it offensive. Arniep 16:14, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
How is English less informative than Scottish? --TimPope 12:17, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Because Scottish (and Welsh- I'm not going near Irish) tend to be stronger identities than English. And yes, "tend" is a red flag that I'm making a sweeping generalisation, which is why I favour dealing with it on a case by case basis. Mark1 12:33, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, you've hit the magic word "identity" as opposed to "nationality". --TimPope 12:49, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
ArnieP, stop reverting to your preferred version or you will be blocked, you are dangerously close to breaking WP:3RR. You've done 4 reverts in 25 hours. --TimPope 22:55, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Tim, I believe that is well within the 3RR rule. I reverted as this page was changed as part of a huge campaign to change every single British entry to English without any discussion or consensus. As no policy has been passed to completely remove British from Wikipedia I am entirely in the right in reverting to it's original version. Arniep 23:07, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland, make up Great Britain. People from England are English, from Scotland are Scottish, from Wales are Welsh and from Ireland, Irish. Together they are British. They are also European. This is fact and anyone who can't see it must be braindead.

[edit] Greatest living actor statement restored

I have restored the text, "regarded by many as the greatest living British actor," into the intro. On January 8, 2006, Cookiecaper removed this, with the edit summary "Non-neutral and excessive statement removed. He is also regarded by many as not the best British actor.". I think this editor misunderstands NPOV. The fact that many regard McKellen as the greatest living British actor is notable and encyclopedic, as this is not true of every actor; in fact it is true of only a very few (perhaps a dozen at most). The fact that one can say that many people believe not q does not disqualify many people believing q from being stated. I invite Cookiecaper to add a criticisms section, if he feels it is important, or if there are those who viscerally disagree with McKellen being in the running for greatest living actor. Like any subjective statement, we can only state that there are people who believe in it. --TreyHarris 16:12, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I have little opinion on Ian McKellen and have only seen him in The Lord of The Rings, where I think he performed well. But please return with statistics showing that a significantly higher than normal percentage of people believe McKellen is the greatest living British actor or I'll remove this statement again. I see little point in including it. It helps this article feel more like it was gleaned off of a fan site than encyclopedic sources, and while it might be written neutrally when taken alone, in context without a source to something showing why this should be included on McKellen's page over anyone else's it pushes the POV that McKellen is a good actor. cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 08:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Trey, I disagree with your argument. The phrase as written is a great example of weasel words (please read through the list of examples - this one appears almost verbatim), and for it to be in the lead paragraph of a featured article is unacceptable. It should be removed. However, if it can be rewritten so that it's no longer a weasel term, there may be some place for it. If it appears anywhere it should be in the article body as part of a discussion of McKellen's stature as an actor. The comment must be attributed to a notable person or people and be supported by a source. These are the key, mandatory ingredients that prevent it from being an encyclopedic, NPOV statement. As part of a critical discussion it may even strengthen the article. Personally, I don't see why Wikipedia needs to be constantly looking for superlatives - surely a discussion of his career is much more substantial and convincing than a sweeping statement like "many think he's the greatest actor". Editorially, this is just plain lazy - if the statement has any truth, do some research and support it with something meaningful. This is one of the worst lead paragraphs I've ever seen in a featured article - if it was up for nomination today, you can be sure it would not succeed. At the recent Golden Globes Jodie Foster introduced Anthony Hopkins as "the world's greatest living actor". Lots of people applauded - who knows what they were actually thinking - and in his acceptance speech, Hopkins should have politely said "no, no, that's Ian McKellen", but he was willing to take all the credit.  :-) The point is that it was a completely empty, meaningless, sycophantic statement because it was not placed into any kind of credible context. Good enough for Jodie Foster, but I think Wikipedia should have stronger editorial ethics than Jodie Foster. Rossrs 11:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
A poll of the Greatest British Actors for Channel 4 placed him 4th after Anthony Hopkins, Ewan McGregor and Sean Connery. Of course combining this with the British/English debate that has been going on, this would make him the greatest English actor (Hopkins being Welsh and McGregor and Connery being Scottish). I don't actually support inclusion of this statement (even though I do think he is an absolutely outstanding actor) as these polls are not particularly scientifically accurate, but I figured that I would play devil's advocate anyway. – MrWeeble Talk Brit tv 13:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm not disputing that this is a widely held view, or that there are not credible sources available to support this opinion. I'm only disputing that the statement in the article is not supported. Rossrs 21:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. So is the assertion that nothing which is not provable, is notable? I.e., only facts are encyclopedic, not people's opinions? I thought NPOV was all about documenting opinions, not taking a position on the factuality of those opinions or removing them. Rossrs exhorts me to avoid weasel words. But weasel words are for the purpose of stating one's own opinion and disguising it as "some people think" or (in this case) "many regard". But there are several examples of polls ([1], [2], [3]—I can produce more) where McKellen is voted for—i.e., "regarded"—by "many" as the "greatest living actor".

One could complain that these are unscientific polls (though it seems that even an unscientific poll would adequately document the idea that many regard him so). So let's turn to journalism. From Ben Brantley, writing in The New York Times [4], October 12, 2001:

Those who know Mr. McKellen only from his recent eccentric film roles (he's the Hobbit-advising wizard in the forthcoming Lord of the Rings) can't begin to appreciate his reputation as the greatest living actor of the English-speaking stage. [Emphasis mine]

Benedict Nightingale, writing in The New York Times [5], March 13, 2005:

There are several contenders for the title of Britain's greatest living theatrical knight -- Ian McKellen, Derek Jacobi, Antony Sher -- but there's no doubt that Sir Michael Gambon comes strongly into the reckoning.

Also from the Times, in an article speculating on who is the greatest actor (not just living), August 23, 2000 by Mel Gussow (sorry, article is no longer on web without a fee):

Among living actors, Michael Gambon, Anthony Hopkins and Ian McKellen -- all of them knighted -- have demonstrated their eligibility for that pantheon....

Finally, from Lawrence O'Toole, also in the Times, April 5, 1992 (and also unavailable on the web); yes, I said 1992:

But just over four years ago, the man who is generally acknowledged to be the greatest living Shakespearean actor (some say Britain's greatest living actor) did indeed step out of the closet of his own homosexuality.

(If you want to argue that The New York Times has a systematic pro-McKellen bias, I'll happily cite some similar quotes from other sources. Remember, I went through this when the FA nomination came up; I documented, and kept my documents! :-)

If you follow theater, you know that there are a tiny handful of actors about whom, in theatrical circles, one must say the words "greatest" and "actor" together, with some set of qualifiers. McKellen is inarguably in that handful. This is notable and encyclopedic, and the fact is that many do regard him as the greatest living British actor. I'm happy to come up with a different way to state that fact. But it is a fact. He is regarded, acknowledge, speculated to be, believed, eligible for the title of, "the greatest living British/Shakespearean/English/English-language actor", and this fact deserves to be not just in the article, but in the lead. It is one of McKellen's defining characteristics. --TreyHarris 18:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I think you missed my point when you said I was exhorting you to avoid weasel words. If you read Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words, it says we should not be using "some people think" etc. It actually does not give examples of cases where it's appropriate to use them so all I was asking you to do was to reframe it so that it no longer could be interpreted as weasel words. It's not simply a case of But weasel words are for the purpose of stating one's own opinion and disguising it as "some people think" or (in this case) "many regard". I wasn't suggesting you were stating your own opinion but you were failing to back up a widely held view with anything concrete. "Nothing which is not provable is notable" - I don't understand what you mean. "Only facts, not people's opinions... documenting opinions" - you didn't document any opinions -you merely used a blanket statement and didn't attribute it to anyone. I certainly don't believe that people's opinions are not worth recording. Read any article I've written and they are full of people's opinions, but they are quoted and sourced. You seem to be totally misinterpreting what I said. Anything written on Wikipedia should be verifiable, so a general, unsupported statement that does not provide a source or means of verification, is not acceptable. That's basic Wikipedia policy - I don't understand why you would be disputing this. You've provided excellent examples here to back up your original statement. If you were to pick one or two of the most significant and address this in the article, even in the lead, and link back to your source (there must be something still available on the web) you would be doing the article a great service. You seem to think I'm disagreeing with you - I'm not. I'm disagreeing with the manner in which the information was originally recorded, not with the overall viewpoint, which is a totally different thing. You said you're "happy to come up with a different way to state that fact" - well, good. That's all I was asking you to do. Rossrs 21:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm asking for guidance on how to state this notable fact, namely that he regularly is referred to as the greatest living actor of some sort, differently from how it was already stated. "So-and-so said, 'McKellen is the greatest actor of our time'" does not belong in the lead, no matter who So-and-so is. It casts the spotlight on So-and-so, not on McKellen. "He has been called, 'the greatest living actor' (cite1), 'the greatest living British actor' (cite2), 'the greatest actor of all time' (cite3)" really seems to be heaping the peacocking on, even if we just use footnotes so the cites are less obtrusive. So how would you propose this be stated?
Note the exceptions in Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words#Exceptions. I'm claiming that this is something like all three cases: 1) The belief or opinion is actually the topic of discussion (I'm assuming the word "discussion" was specifically used instead of "the article" for cases such as this when the opinion is the topic of a sentence or so like here); 2) The holders of the opinion are too diverse or numerous to qualify; and 3) When contrasting a minority opinion (I'm still waiting to see the dissenting view, but I think it should be included if, as Cookiecaper asserted, it is held by many people.).
What I'm a bit flummoxed by is how this just came up 18 months after this article went through peer review and FA nomination, all with the sentence intact. The sentence was on the Main Page (see Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 6, 2004). If it's such an obvious and flagrant violation of NPOV and other guidelines, why has nobody noticed it until this month? --TreyHarris 22:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
One more point—you said, "[Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words] actually does not give examples of cases where it's appropriate to use them". I think the "Exceptions" is talking about exactly that and giving examples of it. If you don't think the Exceptions does so, we should argue that point on Wikipedia talk:Avoid weasel words, not here. --TreyHarris 22:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
No thanks, I'd rather argue one point with you at a time. Sorry, I should have said it doesn't give examples that support the way this was phrased in this article. If your opinion is that they do - we'll have to disagree on that point. Rossrs 09:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

For me not to take this statement out again, it needs to be rephrased and it must have at least two citations from different sources. You seem to be capable of doing that, so do it after reading over Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms. NPOV is not about including all points of view -- only notable points of view. There are always at least ~six billion points of view about any subject at any time, and it is not our purpose to document them all. cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 21:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

How about "is one of Britain's foremost actors"? Trey's sources seem to support that perfectly adequately, and it avoids the weasel problem. Mark1 22:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
it would be an improvement as it avoids the "the greatest" tag and the "regarded by many" phrase, which are the bits I think are problematic. Trey, you're asking for guidance. OK, this is what I think. You have some brilliant quotes which could easily be worked into an authoritative paragraph in "Award winning successes" either at the beginning of the section as a lead-in, or at the end as a summary. That way quotes can be given and placed in a context that supports the existing text in that section. I think that would actually strengthen the article. Keep the comment in the lead paragraph but make it more neutral. That way you don't have to be adding unsightly cites into the lead. I don't know why nobody else has objected to this in 18 months. Standards change, new people come along - I didn't notice it until yesterday. I don't know. But the fact that nobody else has mentioned it does not mean that it's invalid. The aim is to improve the article and what User:Cookiecaper and I have been saying is consistent with the current attitudes and comments in the Featured Article nomination arena, which may be different to the attitudes of 18 months ago. I also think the lead paragraph should be beefed up in line with current trends. That's a seperate issue, and something to consider. Rossrs 09:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I see no problem with saying "many people consider McKellen to be the greatest living British actor". Weasel words (and "peacock words") are a problem when people use them to make unsubstantiated/uncited (and unprovable) assertions. It is a misinterpretation of our guidelines to say that the phrase "many people" is inappropriate in every instance. User:TreyHarris has provided several reputable citations for the proposition that many regard him as The Best. If he had said "most people" then I may have had more misgivings with its presence in the lead of the article.
I don't understand the rationale for removing it from the lead paragraph entirely. Is this an aesthetic issue (having citations in the lead paragraph), an NPOV issue, or merely an issue of editorial preference? There is little question that McKellen is an extremely highly respected performer, and this is at the core of his notability, so I fail to see why it should not be present in the leading paragraph.
As for the changing standards of featured article nominations, it has been said that the FA nomination process has become more stringent over time. However, I disagree with this assertion. As long as I can remember (stretching back to the infancy of Featured Articles), it has been exceedingly difficult to get articles promoted to FA status (in fact, it may have become easier because unactionable objections can be ignored now, whereas they couldn't be before). Regardless, this article is not re-nominated for featured article status. Arguments for its improvement shouldn't be based upon what is the current attitude of those who bother voting on new featured articles (unless process changes so that FAs get re-nominated periodically). - Mark 10:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I partly agree, partly disagree with you. Yes, numerous reputable people believe him to be the greatest actor and I don't dispute this. I think that to have a vague comment such as this in the lead paragraph and nothing in the remainder of the article to support it, is unsatisfactory. That's the all-important point that I've been making and making but which keeps being overlooked. The comment has merit and can be easily supported - so therefore it should be supported. TreyHarris came up with perfect source information and then did nothing with it. If it was in the lead paragraph and further in the body of the article it was discussed in more depth and statements such as these attributed, then that would have been fine. Remember that the lead paragraph is intended as a summary of the article that follows. Whatever is written in the lead paragraph should be explained/qualified/quantified/clarified etc, in the body of the article. That was not the case in this article. It was casually mentioned in the lead and then that was the end of it. Not worth mentioning any further. Well, that's just plain wrong. TreyHarris found several excellent quotes supporting his viewpoint, and I urged him to include them into the article in order to improve the article but they have not been included, and I believe the article is not as strong or as authoritative as it might be. Trey himself argued that inclusion of citations in the lead would be unsightly, but I do agree. I suggested a way of getting around that, but I received no reply. Oh well. The bottom line is that all this good supporting information appears only on the talk page, but how many people are likely to see it here?
I completely disagree with your comment "Arguments for its improvement shouldn't be based upon what is the current attitude of those who bother voting on new featured articles (unless process changes so that FAs get re-nominated periodically)". The aim should be to look at ways of improving all articles at all times, but featured articles should be seen as special cases - ie they need to remain ahead of the field in terms of quality and compliance to trends in style and content. It should not be a formal process, but just part of normal editing. There are numerous featured articles that have been made featured since this one, that are far superior, but I agree that the process itself is very fluid - easy or difficult depending on who happens to be voting at that time. In some areas the standard has been raised, so why is it wrong to think that the standard can't also be raised for this article? I don't see anything wrong in taking ideas that have been discussed during the peer reviews and nominations of those articles and applying the same idea to this one. There should not be restrictions on ways to improve an article. What would you consider arguments should be based upon? Rossrs 14:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
I see your point about the lead paragraph being supported by a section in the text. I didn't realise from my reading of this talk page that that was what you were arguing for on the article. As for the featured article criteria stuff, it's a moot point. Any improvement to an article is good, featured or otherwise. - Mark 03:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
No problem. I think this whole discussion ended up being very overblown anyhow. Rossrs 12:29, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Empire interview

McKellen's Wikipedia entry is mentioned (unfavourably by McKellen) in an interview with McKellen in May 2006's Empire. Rd232 talk 21:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

can you summarise what he said? Arniep 16:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
The quote is:

"Empire: I looked you up on Wikipedia...

McKellan: I don't understand Wikipedia. I've looked myself up on it and it's thoroughly objectionable. It's just taken, as the basis of my career, an article that was written about five years ago, and why someone doesn't correct it.. is that how it's done?

Empire: Pretty much. If you want to change something, you can go on and correct it yourself.

McKellan: Oh... I suppose if you wanted to know someone's dates, or where they were born, it would be quite useful." Crazymaner2003

I can't quite work out what he's objecting to. 'Correct' implies that there's something actually incorrect at the moment; 'five years ago' implies that it's out of date, though as far as I know he hasn't done anything spectacular in the last five years. At least we may have his dates right. :) HenryFlower 20:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
As far as I can tell from that he's not too pleased with the depth. I mean, to some extent I think it's inherent in reading an article about yourself. It must seem odd and anecdotal to him... maybe there are more discrete problems with it. If you look at Britannica's 3 paragraph article on him it doesn't mention LOTR until the very end of the last paragraph and opens with his "versatility" and work for the Royal Shakespeare Company. It also states "his immense talent for acting was unquestionable" which seems to be somethng that we wouldn't permit here. It also doesn't mention his personal life at all. It would be interesting to know what he thinks of the Britannica article and if he had any direct criticisms. gren グレン 23:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Swearing/Have I got News For You

Added a note on McKellen on HIGNFY. What are the rules on swearing on Wikipedia? Can you do it if it's a direct quote (and funny)? Kayman1uk 16:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

It's fine, wikipedia is not censored. Tim! 16:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "The Da Vinci Code" controversy

Testing the Hollywood maxim that there's no such thing as bad publicity, McKellen fanned the fires of controversy surrounding the much-hyped release of the film adaptation of the popular novel, The Da Vinci Code. During a May 17, 2006 interview on The Today Show with the cast and director Ron Howard, Matt Lauer posed a question to the group about how they would have felt if the film bore a prominent disclaimer that it is a work of fiction, as some religious groups wanted. (The Vatican has specifically called for a boycott of the film. [6]) McKellen responded that "I've often thought the Bible should have a disclaimer in the front saying 'This is fiction.' I mean, walking on water? It takes an act of faith. And I have faith in this movie." [7]

This is not merely "newsy". Witness the impact of John Lennon's similar comments decades earlier. Wikipedia is not merely a forum for unmingled praise of this man. (This comment was posted by 68.11.91.36)

Erm... Are you criticising the information or supporting it? Anyway, he's an openly gay, so probably doesn't feel like he has much to lose in the eyes of the kind of people who take the bible so literally that they think an obviously fictional film is blasphemy. I have no objection to including this information, although I don't have any idea what the word "newsy" means. Kayman1uk 14:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why is Da Vinci Code best known?

Why is his role in Da Vinci Code cited as one of his "best known" performances? The movie was only released this year. I understand citing X-men 3, because he's known for being in the X-men series, but a movie so recently released doesn't seem to me to be worthy of such an inclusion in the introductory paragraph. Xt828

[edit] Oxford Professor

I noticed there was no mention in the article about him being a professor at Oxford. Although I don't know much about this, I know he mentioned it when he was on Real Time with Bill Maher. ImmortalDragon 03:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

He was a visiting professor (for a year), which means he came and gave a few lectures. HenryFlower 08:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Picture?

You've gotta be kidding me that's the only Gandalf picture we can get!

[edit] Sir Ian?

It is said

Knights Grand Cross and Knights Commander prefix "Sir",

In Order of the British Empire. Could we call Sir *** for CBE holder?--RedDragon 15:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The article says "He was made a CBE in 1979 and knighted in 1990 for his outstanding work and contributions to the theatre." i.e. his knighthood is separate from his CBE. ColinFine 19:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA on hold

This article will be put on hold (for 7 days) until these minor adjustments can be made :

1. Well written?: Pass
2. Factually accurate?: Pass with few citations needed
3. Broad in coverage?: Pass
4. Neutral point of view?: O. K. (minor adjustments are needed though)
5. Article stability? Pass
6. Images?: Fail

Additional comments :

  • There are statements in the paragraph starting with , In 1978 he met his second partner, Sean Mathias..., that aren't cited and that should be, especially because they are citations and we don't want to infringe copyright.
  • There are weasel words in the article that I think should be reviewed or changed. For example, there are words like famous or was best known for which pertain to fame and should be reduced to the minimum for it is not a matter to wikipedia if this guy is great, it it however a matter to wikipedia to bring the truth in there and no point of vue even if all the media agrees.
Despite his role in this ground-breaking play, is another example of weasel words not associated with sources.
a major global star is redundant for one and unnecessary, just saying he became a star is enough to bring him into stardom. There is no further breaking-down of star (passable, good, excellent, major ;) It might be better to add a citation if you guys want to show how great a star he is, all else sounds POV.

Lincher 00:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I went back and removed some of the weasel words, although I am still unsure because to be fair, McKellen is quite popular. Also, I am unfamiliar with fair use rationale: where do I write such a thing and what do I write? Wiki-newbie 16:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Please refer to all these pages for the rationale : Fair Use policy,

Fair Use rationale & Fair use tagging. An example of it is creating a section that looks like this :

==Fair use rationale for article ...==
1. The image depicts the subject that is mentioned in the article it is present on
2. The image is low-res so it doesn't impinge with the image publishers' use of the image. 
etc. Lincher 17:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I did such for the Gandalf poster and Section 28, and removed Magneto. Wiki-newbie 17:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Nice re-work of the article, I still have additional comments :

  • This paragraph In 1978 he met his second partner, Sean Mathias, at the Edinburgh Festival. According to Mathias, the ten-year love affair was tempestuous, with conflicts over McKellen's success in acting versus Mathias' somewhat less-successful career. Mathias said that "in those days, the world was far more homophobic, and me being the young, pretty boy — people wouldn't take me seriously as an actor, being Ian's boyfriend." Mathias was 22 when they met; McKellen 39. However, Mathias also says McKellen "did nothing but help me" in his career. was removed, why, shouldn't it have been shortened and put back in there.
  • Two paragraphs start with More recently, and shouldn't for there is no time in encyclopedic articles.

Just pipe up the text with some of these modifications and it will be there, the GA is close. Lincher 18:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Cool, just want to say though Awards should be kept. Wiki-newbie 18:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA awarded

Even though there are still long lists that could be cut down and the subject could be expanded, as it stands, the article meets the requirements of GA status and receives such promotion. Good luck with the continuation. Lincher 01:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Wrong order

In the 'Mainstream Success' section, it says this:

In April and May 2005, he played the role of Mel Hutchwright in Granada Television's long running soap opera, Coronation Street. He is also known for his voicework, having narrated Richard Bell's Eighteen, as a grandfather who leaves his WWII memoirs on audiocassette for his teenage grandson. Later on, he fulfilled a life long dream with a role on the long running British television series Coronation Street.

His role in Coronation Street is mentioned twice. Shouldn't this be cleared up?

[edit] Wring Brian Taylor

The link to Brian Taylor, who is listed as Ian McKellans first relationship in 1964, leads to a Brian Taylor who is an Austrialian Footballer, born in 1962. The link has been deleted.

[edit] Derek Jacobi

This quote in the personal section

He won a scholarship to St. Catharine's College, University of Cambridge, when he was 18, where he developed an attraction to Derek Jacobi.

is very ambiguous. What does it mean? They became friends? They had a relationship? There is no other mention of Jacobi in the article so it appears about meaningless to me. Can it be removed? tonyr68uk 10:31, 08 January 2007 (GMT)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../i/a/n/Talk%7EIan_McKellen_14af.html"