Talk:Cillian Murphy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Cillian Murphy article.
Article policies
Featured article star Cillian Murphy is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 26, 2007.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Maintained The following user(s) are actively contributing to this article and may be able to help with questions about verification and sources:
Melty girl
This in no way implies article ownership; all editors are encouraged to contribute.

Contents

[edit] correct birthday

Hm... different sites say different things. IMDB has his birthday on 25 May 1976. We have his birthday on the 13 March 1976. Other sites have his birthday on 13 March 1974. And here he is in the "1974 births" category... Anyone with an inside scoop?

Nothing entirely solid however an interview with him I read in June '05 mentioned he was 29 a couple of times and how the press had his birthday wrong, making him 31... so 1976 anyway. I'd just take the 25 May IMDb one tbh, it's probably been corrected by his agent... Lochaber 13:00, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
Since this discussion, many articles reported on his actual 30th birthday in 2006, and have reported his age and birthday correctly elsewhere, saying he was born 25 May 1976. Other dates are no longer being reported. --Melty girl 20:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "too many pics"

i think there are too many pics in this article, it distracted the article itself. perhaps we should just pick one/two better ones (do we even have his personal/promo pic instead those are taken from movies?) i suggest we put the breakfast on pluto pic in the breakfast on pluto movie page. HoneyBee 01:17, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

i dont agree, there was only 2 pics and they werent distracting and if anyone wants my opinion i think there should actually be more pics of that very attractive man:)
THE PHOTOS IN QUESTION HAVE BEEN CHANGED. --Melty girl 20:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pronunciation of "Cillian"

This article states that his name is pronounced "kill-ee-an", which I believe is correct as he's only ever pronounced it that way in the interviews I've seen. Still, a friend of mine was insistent that properly, it's "kee-yan". Can someone who is actually Irish verify this? Perhaps my friend was misinformed.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.241.144.48 (talk • contribs)

Your friend is misinformed, it's "kill-ee-an". Demiurge 09:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Yeah it's kill-ee-an. I'm Irish. By the way Disco Pigs the play was written by Enda Walsh and directed by Pat Kiernan not written by him as the article suggests.
Your friend was pronouncing my name (Cian), not Cillian. I'm already using the non-Irish spelling on here for the benefit of 95% of the worlds population that can't pronounce Irish hard-C's. --Kiand 20:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
actor, it is always positive -89.124.89.62 23:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Long since resolved; I inserted a citation. --Melty girl 20:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
The citation being "The Irish name Cillian is pronounced "Killyann" (though often mispronounced "Sillian")." is not a reliable source for this; do we actually have a source? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 14:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Cillian1.jpg

Image:Cillian1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

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

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 19:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

UPDATE: THE IMAGE WAS DELETED by BetacommandBot, and replaced with a properly-licensed photo by Mirka --Melty girl 20:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Passed

Sorry this has taken so long. I think we kind of missed this being on there.

1. Well written?: Yes, this article is well written, though it's a rather long article, and on that merit, the lead should be adequately descriptive (and I don't think it is). You have a lot of very short paragraphs, and one-sentence paragraphs. Most of these could be merged into longer paragraphs, just for flow for the reader (particularly in the personal life section).
I will address these issues fully within 1-2 days. --Melty girl 06:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Y Done The lead section has been appropriately expanded and short paragraphs have been combined where it made sense. --Melty girl 08:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
...Section wise, I think you need to segregate the history/biography from everything else, as:
1 Early life
2 From music to acting
3 Acting career 
3.1 Early work
3.2 Critical success
I find that these three sections could all be one section called "Biography" which these sections and subsections become (respectively) sub-sections and sub-subsections.
Y Done by LincaLinca and me (I tucked "Personal life" under "Biography" too, because it seemed odd otherwise). --Melty girl 06:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
...Another issue about how it's written, I think there're too many uses of captioned quotes. I'm fine with the quotes, but they do alter the reading pattern. Maybe just embed the quote into prose to make it easier to follow. I'm not saying taken them all out, but the shorter ones should be just part of the regular paragraphs.
Y Done I removed one for length and embedded the other two into the regular paragraphs. --Melty girl 06:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
2. Factually accurate?: I can't find any issues with accuracy, though some of the references need to be formatted to be consistent with others, just to make it easier on the users viewing the page.
Could you be more specific about this concern and point out the footnotes at issue? I must be missing something, because I'm not sure what to change. (If you're concerned about IMDb refs not having access dates, I thought that the site is so stable that it wouldn't matter. If you're talking about some citations not having authors, that's only where there were no authors. And if you're concerned with some refs not having links to the articles, that is because there are no online version of those articles, or at least no copyright-safe versions online. Please correct me if any of these assumptions are off-the-mark.) --Melty girl 06:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
3. Broad in coverage?: Definitely very thorough. Possibly too thorough, actually. I don't think I need to know the directors of each of the stageplays he's been in, as they're not necessarily of note, certainly not of greater note than the films he's been in, which don't indicate the film's directors (though it may be worth noting in prose rather than in the list, that he's worked with Garry Hynes three times from 99 to 2004, since that's a common element).
Y Done --Melty girl 06:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
4. Neutral point of view?: Possibly a bit in sway of Murphy, but that's to be expected. I don't know of any major issues that aren't covered here.
I searched hard (!) and found a negative review that I will add in the next two days. --Melty girl 06:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Y Done Added negative review of Breakfast on Pluto. --Melty girl 03:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
5. Article stability? From what I see, Melty girl seems to be doing all the work, so I may be preaching to a choir of one here, but I can't see any contentious issues arising on this page. I don't think stability's an issue, really.
Y Done Yes, I seem to be the only major contributor. There are no edit wars here right now. --Melty girl 06:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
6. Images?: Nice use of images, but make sure you're using the right fair use/free licence template and providing a thorough fair use rationale if applicable.
Y Done I worked through the images' licensing carefully, with assistance from Wiki copyright advisors, Rossrs and Mirka, so these three images should all be fine. But if you have a specific concern, I'd be happy to address it. --Melty girl 06:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.

All in all, an informative, generally well written article which I'd be happy to pass if you adress these issues appropriately. — lincalinca 13:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I will continue to work on the above remaining issues in the next two days. --Melty girl 06:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Just so you don't have to, I've dohne the bio edit I suggested. I'll leave the rest to you to work out. This was something I saw that could be easily adjusted, but the rest may affect your article, so it's your's to do what you want with it. --lincalinca 13:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] On the needed GA edits

Thanks so much for your consideration of this article, Lincalinca. And yes, I seem to be the only major contributor to this article. I will address your concerns within the next three days. --Melty girl 15:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I will make notes about changes above, as I go. BTW, I'm getting ready to move -- this nomination and review has fallen at a tricky time for me. I would very much appreciate it if you didn't cut this process off at the minimum 2 days. I will get everything done as quickly as I can, but 2 days is probably not possible. Thanks! --Melty girl 05:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't intend to cut you off on 2 days. I'll give you the full seven, if you need it (which is six, now). --lincalinca 06:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you! I've never been through this process before, so I just wanted to check in about the time issue. --Melty girl 06:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
The page is shaping up. I just noticed you refer to his batman character as "The Scarecrow". In the comics and in the film, he's somewhat interchangably refered to with and without "the", though more officially without. I'd suggest just removing the "the". If you feel it flows better with "the", then you can keep it, but I'd unlink that part so that it's simply "Scarecrow" that's wikilinked and keep the t in "the" uncapitalised. Other than that, a slight expansion of the lead is all I think I need to pass this. lincalinca 08:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Y Done - Eliminated the instance of "The Scarecrow". (Modifications to the lead coming shortly, as per my note above.) --Melty girl 19:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lead

Copied from here.
Hello again. Thanks for all your help with the Cillian Murphy article as GA reviewer. Just wanted to ask you for a little more feedback re the lead section, which is the only thing left to address. I've been looking at the list of current FA actor/filmmaker articles via Wikipedia:WikiProject_Actors_and_Filmmakers, and I've noticed that many have rather short leads despite long articles. So I'm a little confused as exactly what should be added to the Cillian Murphy lead section. For example, should anything about his personal life and politics hit the lead section? I think a brief mention of his early music career should, but I don't feel sure of what else should be added. I think the acting career highlights are all already there. So I would very much appreciate your making a few specific suggestions for the lead section on the talk page. Thanks! --Melty girl 07:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking something along the lines of this:

Cillian Murphy (born 25 May 1976, Douglas, Cork, Ireland) is a film and theatre actor noted for his broad range of performances in diverse roles, as well as his distinctive blue eyes.
Early in his career, Murphy appeared in a number of Irish and British film and stage productions throughout the late 1990s and early 2000s, but first came to international attention in 2003 as the hero in the post-apocalyptic film, 28 Days Later. Murphy followed this success with performances as villains in two 2005 blockbusters, first as the Scarecrow in Christopher Nolan's Batman Begins, and Jackson Rippner in Wes Craven's thriller Red Eye opposite Rachel McAdams. In 2006, Murphy's performance as transgendered outcast "Kitten" in Breakfast on Pluto earned him his first Academy Award Nomination for Best Actor. Further praise was garnered with Murphy's turn as a 1920s Irish revolutionary in Palme d'Or winner The Wind That Shakes the Barley.
A resident of London since leaving Ireland in 2001, Murphy often works in or near London[8] and has expressed that he has no desire to move to Hollywood, unlike his County Cork contemporary, Jonathan Rhys Meyers.

I threw that last bit in there about JRM becuase I've read a handful (at least three) newspaper articles that talk about the "Cork uprising" which all refer to the fact that in a short period of time, these guys both sort of dropped out of nowhere, but that that nowhere seemed to be Cork. Other than that, that's the kind of framework I'd be interested in seeing in there. Don't take this as a re-write, but simply as an idea to go off. I'm aware most of the actors in FA don't have extensive leads, and that puzzles me, as the FA guidelines (heck, even the GA guidelines) as well as the description of an appropriate length lead in WP:LEAD all indicate the length the lead should be in proportion to the article. lincalinca 08:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
OK, thanks for the guidance. I agree with you about it being confusing comparing FA actor leads to WP:LEAD. I will give it some more research and consideration later today and make some edits. The only thing I must differ with you on is that I'm not sure Rachel McAdams and Jonathan Rhys Meyers merit mention in the Cillian Murphy lead. McAdams is not a significant part of Murphy's career any more than co-stars Christian Bale, Colin Farrell, or Stephen Rea are. Directors of Murphy's films seem worth mentioning, but one-time co-stars who aren't half of a very famous, iconic teaming or weren't paired multiple times with the subject don't necessarily seem to fit the bill for the Murphy lead. And though I like JRM, it seems strange to single him out for mention in the Murphy lead when so many Irish stars move to Hollywood; JRM and Murphy haven't done anything together and aren't friends. The Cork uprising topic is interesting, but it seems like a detail for the "Acting career" section, and you didn't directly mention it. But those are just two minor quibbles with what was only a suggestion; thanks for the help! --Melty girl 20:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm following the passage of this article and would make one comment about the lead that comes from the WP:LEAD: "the lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article". Briefly summarising the important points of the article seems counter-productive as it seems like duplication but it really does fit well if you can rewrite the lead to comply; then it might be passed. I had to do the same with Postage stamps of Ireland that recently became an FA but you know the topic well so try it. Cheers ww2censor 02:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, that's very helpful. --Melty girl 05:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Y Done I went more by WP:LEAD than the example of some FA actor articles. --Melty girl 08:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
...guess what? (look up). Congratulations. --lincalinca 01:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Fantastic! Thank you so much. --Melty girl 01:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Keeping promises

I'm trying to edit this article for flow and meaning, as promised on the biography peer review page, but I'm really not having much luck. So I'm coming to the talk page, hoping maybe we can make it work together.

  1. Lead I'm having trouble with "noted for chameleonic performances in diverse roles" as it just sounds too fawning, but I can't seem to come up with any alternative language. I'm thinking of cutting it to "noted for performing in diverse roles," because the only alternative working I can think of for chameleonic is "good acting," which is just as fawning as "chameleonic." I read the article being used as a source, and I can see that the chameleonic bit just means he's good at playing different characters, but I think that's covered by diverse roles.
  2. Early life When I read this at first, I thought the problem was that it doesn't flow, but trying to make it flow I'm simply encumbered by all of the detail. I can make it read fairly smoothly by chopping out much of the information, which I'm loath to do. Here's (text only, I'll do a version with all of the sources you've got if you like this) what I've got so far.
 Murphy was born in Douglas, County Cork in Ireland.[6] He is the eldest son [8] of a family of educators; his father works
for the Irish Department of Education, and mother is a French teacher,[7]. Music also ran in the family, and Murphy started
playing (what instrument?) at about age ten.[11]

That takes out his dad's name, the number of children in the family, his sibling's names and the fact that his aunts, uncles and grandrather were teachers. Is this appropriate removal of irrelevant information, or chopping out the good bits? Also, in the last sentence of the paragraph, music is repetitious; do you have the source used there? If so, does it say what type of music or what instrument he started playing at ten?

And that's all I've got for now. Enuja (talk) 02:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a crack at this. I'm moving tomorrow and Saturday, so I want to apologize for not being able to work on incorporating your ideas for a few days. But here are some quick comments for you to chew on, though hopefully by Sunday or Monday I can get back to working on the article itself.
  1. Lead. Regarding what I am attempting to get at with "chameleonic"... "Chameleonic," as a quality ascribed to an actor, is different from taking diverse roles. Some actors take on diverse roles, but don't disappear into them the way others do, even if they're great actors. "Chameleonic" is an adjective applied to the technique and approach of an actor (not to the roles taken), and often major movie stars don't have this approach. This is why Murphy is referred to as "a character actor trapped in a leading man's bone structure". Streep can be chameleonic, but Pacino is not really, yet he's great and has taken a great diversity of roles. And some actors don't even take diverse roles, but my point is that the concept is different from describing an actor's instrument as chameleonic. And I do think it's important to try to say something of substance in the lead paragraph about what an actor is known for actually being like, rather than just saying, "Cillian Murphy is an Irish actor." If you compare him to a peer leading man, say Ben Affleck or even Colin Farrell, I think we can begin to look at what each is known for in contrast to the other and begin to get at how to characterize Murphy. Neither of those two has a chameleonic (or however it might be better expressed) approach, and they both take action roles, etc., etc. I don't want to fawn, but I don't want to say nothing either.
  2. Early life. I see what you're getting at but you've just made it just a little too spartan for my taste. I agree, we could remove all references to his family members by name and skip mentioning his siblings at all, but you know what? I don't think it's particularly objectionable to have them there, and they'll be back in the blink of an eye after we take them out. Why not leave them there, in as well-written a form as we can muster, instead of choosing to fight their sloppy and poorly sourced re-entry back into the page at every turn? Most actor pages describe family of origin, and I don't think it's problematic. This is an encyclopedia, so why do we need to lose the finer detail/specificity in what's already a pretty short paragraph? In particular, I think eldest of four is an important detail, and his brother figures in his musician history, so I wouldn't cut the siblings out. Also, I haven't been able to find out what instrument he started on, probably because he's famous as an actor, not a musician. He plays guitar, but I can't verify that that was his first instrument. (And as you can guess, I've read and reread hundreds of articles.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Melty girl (talk • contribs) 04:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Don't worry about taking your time; there is no deadline, and the article is, well GOOD at present. Unless I think of a better word or better phrasing, you've convinced me that chamelenoic should stay. On early life: I agree that describing family of origin is good, but I think the current "early life" section is too sketchy; it's a collection of facts which feels like a skeleton. It needs meat. I know my approach above is to take bones off, but I think I'm removing facts in order to make the current amount of meat fit the number of bones. Browsing through Biography FAs, I came across Celine Dion, and the early life section there is written superbly. For example, look at how the siblings names (although certainly not all of her siblings names!) are introduced; they flow easily, added in as a part of a wider story. Also, there are fewer subdivisions in the biography section, and I think that would also make it easier to write flowing prose. For example, his brother's name could show up first in a mention of the band they had together. Enuja (talk) 05:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I did a modest edit of the family of origin paragraph, not quite as radical as what you tentatively proposed. I think the flow has been improved, with the educators info together instead of separated. --Melty girl 07:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] For Enuja, re early section changes

Still running around like crazy, but I made a further refinement to your new outline scheme (see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cillian_Murphy&diff=prev&oldid=155264384 for Edit summary). You got rid of the music section, which I'm not yet sure is an improvement or not; maybe it's better... I'm not sure.

But I do feel very strongly that your new split jumped into the (Early) Acting career section a paragraph too early, thus disrupting the flow of the prose with the "segue" quote, and also making it inaccurate. His brief law degree and first amateur role do not belong in the Acting career section. Many actors do amateur parts with drama societies in primary or secondary school, but that's not part of an acting career -- it's early life. Take a look and see what you think of the changes I made. Cheers, Melty girl 23:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

It's certainly an improvement! I like how the sections feel like real length sections now, and you're right, the law bit needed to go in the first section. Enuja (talk) 22:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Excellent! Hopefully next we can continue work on honing the prose in the Early life section. --Melty girl 23:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cillian's blue eyes

Cillian Murphy is an actor widely renowned for his blue eyes. Someone asked "how many critics have mentioned his blue eyes?" In response to this, I did a Nexis search on the issue. The following contain reference to his eyes:

Hopefully this stunning list can establish that, in fact, his blue eyes are rather remarkable. I tend to think that 128 reliable sources are satisfactory for the claim. --JayHenry 04:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Then I don't see the problem with quoting someone directly about his blue eyes. I would suggest perhaps quoting the most notable mention of his eye color and then mentioning how it's relevant, without using weasel words in the article. Wikidudeman (talk) 18:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
The article already does this repeatedly, so I guess your objection has been addressed. In the lead it would be inappropriate to give undue weight to one critic, as has been affirmed repeatedly on biographies about performers (and is also consistent with our other actor FAs). In order to comply with WP:LEAD the article begins with a summary. Let's move on to other points, which are supposedly quite numerous, but have not yet had identified. --JayHenry 18:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
In order to properly summarize the sources mentioned above, You need to use the word most often used by them to refer to his eye color. How many of them used "distinctive"? 5? 10? 15 of them? Wikidudeman (talk) 18:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
To aid discussion I added 50 random excerpts from reliable sources above that discuss his blue eyes. This was just the first fifty sentences culled from a Nexis search of Murphy's eyes to get an idea of the frequency of the different adjectives. Adjectives include "icy", "pale", "Nazi-blue", "cool", "striking", "otherworldly", "startling", "stunning", "piercing", "impossibly blue", "trademark blue", "surreal light-blue eyes", "pale transluscent", "inconceivably blue", "glacial blue". I would have to say that "icy" is the most common adjective. I didn't really think describing over one hundred critics and journalists in reliable sources as "many" and summarizing the above adjectives as distinctive would be considered weasel-wording. I really feel we've more than passed the WP:PROVEIT threshold. Maybe you could propose an alternate version of the lead that would be more acceptable to you? Also, I would really like to work on the rest of the article. --JayHenry 19:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Wikidudeman, we do not need the specific "word most often used" by critics -- we need the word that best summarizes how critics talk about his eyes. I have not yet heard a suggestion that's more NPOV or all-encompassing than "distinctive," either here or on the FAC page. Additionally, JayHenry, I must add that you are pretty darned awesome for documenting all that. --Melty girl 03:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
JayHenry, that's al almost onerous amount of work you put into that list, but it was making this talk page far too long, so I've encapsulated it into a collapsible table. I hope you don't mind. Now on to my opinion: Murphy's a great actor, but much of his "prestige" is based on his appearance, and almost every jest, quip or report I've ever heard of referring to his appearance has discussed his eyes, so it'd be silly to not mention his eyes and, strange as it sounds, their importance. It's like discussing A Flock of Seagulls without discussing the hair, even though the hair is not centrally what they were trying to achieve (they were trying to achieve music, even though it was terrible), they had almost more impact due to their hairstyles. Murphy is much the same: a great deal of emphasis has been placed on Murphy's evey, both from an acting performance perspective (as some of those excerpts provide a just example for), but also from a "persona" perspective, distinguishing him from many other (sadly, mostly unsuccessful) UK and European actors. --lincalinca 06:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for collapsing the list. I understand where the FA regulars are coming from. Nine times out of ten, if an article talked about an actor's blue eyes in the lead they would be right, that it doesn't belong. But demonstrating to them that something is a special case rightfully requires an extra effort. Unfortunately, the reviewers are often so busy with so many articles that they haven't taken the time to educate themselves about a particular subject. They mean well, and they are really valuable wikipedians, but as a consequence of the huge amount of work they do (and because they are right nine times out of ten), they don't always realize when they've made a mistake. --JayHenry 17:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citation templates

This article uses no citation templates, and WP:CITE states (in bold), "citation templates should not be added against consensus, and editors should not change articles from one style to another if there are objections." Please honor the current style already implemented in this well-established article and do not add templates. Thank you. --Melty girl 03:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I generally use citation templates because they're so fast, and I was just trying to add sources quickly. I didn't even notice that other sources weren't citation templates, and I didn't think it would be a big deal. Certainly feel free to change them back. --JayHenry 17:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
No worries -- I figured it was probably just habit on the part of you and SandyGeorgia, so I just needed to make this clear. --Melty girl 19:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Just to resurrect this for one moment: I've no objection whatsoever to the citation method used in this article (I supported its FAC, after all), but I have to ask out of sheer curiosity why you've done it this way? All the best, Steve T • C (formerly Liquidfinale) 16:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

As WP:CITE states, many editors don't like citation templates, and I'm one of them. I really don't like them. The main issue is that they don't all format the resulting footnote in the same format. Some use periods, some don't, and so on. If there was only one citation template, so all incidences resulted in the same format, I might like them, but even then, they add unnecessary extra text bulk to the page. And they leave your footnotes at the whim of template creators. I'd much rather type the reference exactly as I want it, with no extra text bulking up the page, and with any typos easily fixable. Once you've written a couple of footnotes, it's a no brainer to write them yourself, sans template. --Melty girl (talk) 16:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Ah, that makes sense I guess. I can easily understand the desire not to have something which is out of your control tampered with when you have an article just right. Thanks for the prompt reply. Steve T • C 18:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, and it's hard enough to edit the text while wading through references -- cite templates make the references even longer! And they increase the byte size of the page. --Melty girl (talk) 18:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Smash hit" and "blockbuster"

Jay, the reason I wanted to describe Batman Begins as a blockbuster and Red Eye as a smash (and critical) hit is because these two films were more successful than anything Murphy had been in ever before. 28 Days Later came close, but the fact that these two were such big hits and came out at the same time, meant that Murphy was seen by far more eyeballs worldwide -- and the only way to convey that is to document that the films were very successful financially, which I did. I understand that you were trying to make the article more neutral, but it is verifiable that the two films were very successful at the box office and were considered hits, so I didn't really think it was POV to label them as hits. I think the section is weaker without this point, but you didn't like the wording. How would you reword it to get the point across about his career being moved forward by being in these two big hits? --Melty girl 06:08, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I like the phrases "escalated", "brought into the public eye", "elevated to mainstream popularity", "achieved international notability" and things like that, but that's me. I like it like it is now, but these substitutes seem adequate to me. --lincalinca 06:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Right now, all it says is that the two roles were "high-profile". The adjectives "blockbuster" and "smash hit" were removed, along with the supporting citations documenting how well the films did. Maybe everyone will decide that it's fine like it is, but I feel like the point could made more directly to explain why these films were so important to his career. That way, there would be not only critical support for that argument, but economic/audience reasons too. --Melty girl 06:36, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I do see the point and it's important, my goal is not to remove it. I'd still prefer to stay away from the terms "smash hit" and "blockbuster" because they have no specific meaning. I think we can still make this point by saying that they were from major hollywood studios, Warner Brothers and Dreamworks, directed by major directors Christopher Nolan and Wes Craven and then using some good statistics. Good stats for measuring how seriously the studios take a movie are how many theaters the film opened in, and then how much it grossed, and how it's done on DVD and rentals, if available. I think we can make the same point, but do it with numbers, hence making the point even stronger. --JayHenry 17:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm with you on this -- I just hope to make the point in as concise a way as possible, since the focus should stay on Murphy and not veer into too much detail about the films. My strategy before was simply to state that the films were big successes and then provide the details in the citations, since we need not get into a discussion of all the various financial stats in this article. Do you see a way to do that with clear, short prose and reliable sources? At this point, I'm wary of doing it myself. --Melty girl 19:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Once"

Is it worth mentioning that he was going to star in Once but pulled out before shooting? I don't know whether it's Wikipedia practise to mention stuff like that.Vanityjunkie 12:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The question is really whether the information is important enough to mention here. I added the story of his attachment to the Once page, because it was a big part of the production story for the film. But here, it seems borderline whether, in the context of Murphy's entire career, this is an important enough story. Do we need to know about films he didn't actually do? At this point, we don't even tell the story of every film he DID do. Perhaps if he was originally cast as say, Jack Sparrow or Jack Twist in blockbusters like Pirates of the Carribean or Brokeback Mountain, then that would be a story worth telling. But despite the surprising success of an indie like Once, it's not a household name, so I'm not convinced it's worth mentioning here. I don't think it's something that people reading an encyclopedia entry about him necessarily need to know, since it's something he didn't do. We don't want to wander into too much tangential information. That's my take on it anyway. --Melty girl 16:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I think it would be important to note if Murphy had a habit of pulling out of films (I'm not aware of whether he is or not, but haven't heard that he is). If not, it may not be worth noting, but if he is, it might be an idea to mention a few films he has pulled out of with a reference on each referring to a reputable source. --lincalinca 07:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
This is the only one I know about... and I've read a ridiculous number of articles about the man. --Melty girl 15:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use images on this page

Today, two weeks after FA was attained, an uninvolved editor came by and removed all the fair use images from this article and tagged the images themselves for review. I soon discovered that this user is involved in a debate at Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#Fair_use_images_of_celebs_in_Biography_article.3F, which began because of a dispute over an unrelated actor article, Preity Zinta. Many of the users in this debate noted the long-term and proper use of fair use images of fictional roles in FA actor article. The editor who removed the images from this article is laboring under the misapprehension that the three fair use images of Murphy's work were replaceable by the free image of Murphy himself in the infobox. Here is what I commented in the aforementioned discussion regarding this and what I feel was the inappropriate tagging of these images for (which is still pending):

As the major contributor to Cillian Murphy, who carefully went through all the WP hoops to select and properly provide rationales for those images and bring the article to FA, I feel frustrated, and as a WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers member who wants our work on actors to be the definitive resource, I feel alarmed.

Cillian Murphy just made it through an arduous FAC process a mere two weeks ago, and the fair use rationales were found to be sound. Yes, there is a free image in the infobox, but it is woefully wrongheaded to suggest that one free image of the actor attending a premiere can do the work of properly illustrating his career section -- the bulk of the article -- which details his fictional roles. Each of the three fair use images chosen for the article expanded upon specific points in the text in a way that prose cannot do, in order to document the WORK of an artist who is famous for working in a visual medium; these photos are NOT being used simply to depict Murphy himself. To write the rationales for the three images in question, I went through Wikipedia:Media copyright questions and worked with a member of WikiProject Fair use. Why disregard this whole process? I have to wonder if Sarvagnya actually read the article, or if s/he simply saw fair use images and removed them.

There was a recent battle over a screenshot of Donnie Darko on Jake Gyllenhaal, and the image was retained. I think that some of the anti-fair use image hawks fail to understand that valid fair use images of actors in their key fictional roles do not constitute a simple depiction of those real people themselves; these constitute illustrations of their work as artists. This perfectly reasonable and helpful encyclopedic use of fair use images on actor articles seems to be threatened because of extreme partisanship regarding fair use images on WP more generally. I think that going in this direction for actor articles reduces the quality of WP for readers, and is woefully ignorant about the art and meaning of film acting. I also think that going after images that have made it through every hoop up to FA wastes the time and energy of editors; I'm not saying that the FA process is infallible, but I do think it should give an editor pause to carefully read the article, rationales and reviews before taking drastic action. In this case, initiating a discussion would have been much more appropriate than removing all FU images from an article that became FA two weeks ago.

--Melty girl (talk) 21:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the replaceable non-free images from this page based on the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content. I have no idea how this slipped by FA review, but this is a no-brainer. Non-free images of actors are almost never permitted to show how they look. They are permitted in articles about characters they have played (to depict the character, because this cannot be done except in the context of the work) and films in which they have appeared (also non-replaceable), but they are not permitted in the actor's biographical article. They can be replaced by any image of the actor. This is clearly stated in WP:NFC at counterexample #12, and this is how the policy has been consistently applied for many months, at least. Sorry, but please do not replace these images. -- But|seriously|folks  23:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
By way of explanation, and not to take sides: it passed FA review because, I think in general, most reviewers at FAC are not nearly as dogmatic about WP:NFC. Everyone takes it seriously but as far as American copyright law goes (and I speak with professional experience with fair use), these rationales are both easily sufficient (oh, by the way, they also clearly and explicitly state that the purposes of the images are not mere "identification"). Wikipedia choses to go far, far, far above and beyond what copyright law requires. That's certainly laudable, and within the project's prerogative, but WP:FAIRUSE includes as permitted: "Film and television screen shots: For critical commentary and discussion of the cinema and television." So this is an explicitly permitted use with an easily valid, explicit and legal rationale. If it still needs to be removed, so be it, but let's not overstate the case. --JayHenry (talk) 00:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I have to disagree with Butseriouslyfolks because the images he has removed are specifically NOT replaceable non-free images. What image can you possibly use to replace an image of an actor in a role with a free image? There are no possible free images of the actor in a role unless you were a photographer on the film set at the time of shooting and in that case you would probably be there under contract, so you would not have the right to release the images anyway. This is a clear case of fair-use images being appropriately used otherwise this article suffers greatly without those images of Cillian's professional career. ww2censor (talk) 01:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)a
Removing images based on Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content is not acceptable. Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content is talk page. The actual guideline page is WP:FU. And on that page under Acceptable images it states Film and television screen shots: For critical commentary and discussion of the cinema and television. The FU images on this article are exactly that. Therefore based on the current state of WP:FU they cannot be removed. If you disagree with the guideline stated on WP:FU and would like to propose changes, then you will first need to seek consensus on the talk page, and then modify the guideline page WP:FU, and then you can enforce the new guideline on articles. However as the WP:FU stands now, the current use of these images in the article are acceptable. Best --Kudret abiTalk 08:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I noticed someone brought this issue up at the village pump, so I'll add in my two cents *throws two cents into cesspool*. It would appear as though #8 of acceptable images and #12 of unacceptable images are at odds with each other. However, I believe #12 is referring more to non-free pictures of the actual person, so for example pictures taken by a member of the press at a movie premiere or at an awards ceremony. I think using screenshots depicting him in notable roles is allowed under fair-use, although on a side note is there a reason you didn't show him as the Scarecrow in Batman Begins? That would certainly seem to be one of his most notable roles, but then again I'd never heard of him until Batman Begins, so I may be completely unaware of his other notable roles. As long as you keep the fair-use images depicting him in roles down to two (because I think three would be pushing it), the article should be okay. Not to mention, the consensus, given this just passed its FA nomination (congrats, by the way), would seem to think that the pictures are not in violation. That's just my two cents, and if you don't like it...gimme back my money :P Anakinjmt (talk) 13:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I read an interesting passage at the WP article on Fair use:
The four factors of analysis for fair use set forth above derive from the classic opinion of Joseph Story in Folsom v. Marsh, 9 F.Cas. 342 (1841), in which the defendant had copied 353 pages from the plaintiff's 12-volume biography of George Washington in order to produce a separate two-volume work of his own. The court rejected the defendant's fair use defense with the following explanation:
[A] reviewer may fairly cite largely from the original work, if his design be really and truly to use the passages for the purposes of fair and reasonable criticism. On the other hand, it is as clear, that if he thus cites the most important parts of the work, with a view, not to criticize, but to supersede the use of the original work, and substitute the review for it, such a use will be deemed in law a piracy....
In short, we must often... look to the nature and objects of the selections made, the quantity and value of the materials used, and the degree in which the use may prejudice the sale, or diminish the profits, or supersede the objects, of the original work.
I see the bolded phrase to be most critical in our assessment. These images while loosely defined as criticism, certainly do not supersede the use of the original work, nor do they: prejudice the sale, diminish the profits, or supersede the objects of the original work. To the contrary these uses probably enhance the sales and profits for the original works -- free advertising! --Kevin Murray (talk) 03:56, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Fair use review

For those who care to participate, an editor who tried unsuccessfully to put up this article for FAR only two weeks after FA, has initiated this: Wikipedia:Fair_use_review#Cillian_Murphy --Melty girl (talk) 04:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Today's featured article

Heads up. –thedemonhog talk • edits 04:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

How is this a featured article? The second sentence is ridiculous. "He is often noted by critics for chameleonic performances in diverse roles, all the reviews being spectacualar, out of this world, fantastic[2][3] as well as for his distinctive blue eyes." Two sources allow you to conclude that every single review about him says he is "out of this world" and "fantastic?" Plus what is with the word "spectacualar?" 18.96.6.53 (talk) 03:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Its called vandalism: WP:VANDAL 128.227.78.188 (talk) 03:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention the line "In his late teens and early twenties he did his mom alot" - what on earth does that mean? (polite answers please) (Update: Just realised it's vandalism that occurred today - question rescinded!)--Jtomlin1uk (talk) 15:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lead sentence

Per most, if not all bios about actors, it really isn't necessary in the LEAD sentence to include when he first started acting, ect. Maybe work this into the article further in even though it is probably already touched upon. Thanks, --Tom (talk) 19:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree-- "active since 1996" seems unnecessary to me. Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, hopefully Melty girl will agree since she seems very involved in this article. Also, under early life, the 5th or so sentence seems like it could use tweeking. It now reads"Murphy attended the Catholic school Presentation Brothers College, where he did well academically, though he was not keen on sport, a major part of life at the school." This could be revamped? Anyways, --Tom (talk) 19:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I completely disagree about "active since 1996", and apparently all the other reviewers from GA to peer to FA must too, since they all wanted it in the lead. It is NOT appropriate to compare this FA article to all other actor bios, since most are not FA and therefore do not set any standard that can be used as a guide. You must instead look to WP guidelines. Including the era in which he does his work is perfectly appropriate to the lead -- it's one of those key things about his significance as per WP:MOSBIO: who, what, where, WHEN, why, how. This fundamental info about when this notable person did his work is succinctly put in 3 words, so it's odd that you find it objectionable. About other things, I strongly suggest that you wait until this day is over (it almost is) and the article is off the main page, because right now we're just trying to get through the vandalism while this article is in the spotlight. Additionally, I suggest that you read over the peer review, GA and FACs before you start retreading every single old issue from scratch. --Melty girl (talk) 19:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Melty girl, I believe there are numerous FA bios of actors and others that do NOT include such wording in the lead. Per wp:mosbio it says that what they did and why they are significant should be included. It does not include time frames except for birth and death. Please look at other FA bios. The lead sentence should really be left as susinct(sp) as possible. Anyways, nice work on FA status and main page. Cheers! --Tom (talk) 20:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Irish Examiner article

I removed this sentence for now: He also said that it was his drama teacher at PBC, Billy Wall, who inspired him to enter acting. (ref name="Irish Examiner 2005">Carroll, John. "Cillian Murphy", The Irish Examiner, 10 January 2005.) Reasons:

  1. Can't find the source material yet. Am looking -- is there anyone who can help?
  2. Do know that this was his English teacher, not his drama teacher.
  3. Need to verify that Murphy's teacher was the author linked to.
  4. If verified, sentence will need rephrasing to fit properly into the flow of the paragraph.

--Melty girl (talk) 01:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't do an exhaustive search, but I couldn't find anything initially in Nexis. The Irish Examiner archives for January 10, 2005] don't have that article listed either, but they might not be complete online archives. I did find an article:
  • O'Sullivan, Gemma. "Sane boy of the western world", Sunday Times (London), February 1, 2004
In this article it says:
Groomed in the academic hothouse of Cork's Presentation Brothers college, Murphy's interests were at odds with the prevailing rugby ethos.

"If you had any creative or artistic leaning, it wasn't catered for," he says, "although I had a brilliant English teacher, Billy Wall.

...

Wall, who is also a poet and novelist, encouraged Murphy to pursue acting in his final year in school at a time when his ambitions lay elsewhere, namely in rock'n'roll. That was not an entirely popular option at home, in Ballintemple, a confluence of estates around the affluent Blackrock Road, where Murphy grew up the eldest in a family of four children, two boys and two girls.

That would certainly seem to be the same William Wall that's linked. --JayHenry (talk) 06:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I found this one too, and will see if I can't incorporate some of it. But I'm hesitant to reintroduce The Irish Examiner reference if you couldn't find it either. Thanks! --Melty girl (talk) 07:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I was the year above Cillian in school, so I may be able to clear up a few things, even if it's not a citeable source. Firstly, the Irish education system does not treat drama as a separate subject, so there was no such thing as a school drama teacher. Drama was covered in the English course and some of the English teachers were involved in putting on plays etc. William Wall, the poet and novelist, was one of the English teachers in the school and was known by the name Billy Wall during his time there.Irlchrism (talk) 15:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Excellent! --Melty girl (talk) 16:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I incorporated the info from The Sunday Times into the article. We're all set now. --Melty girl (talk) 02:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


If I may assist with the original concern, the article in question is:

{{cite news | title = PBC Cork celebrating 125 years | work = Newspaper Supplement | publisher = [[The Irish Examiner]] | page = 14 | author = John Carroll | date = 2005-01-10 |}}

"Hollywood star and Douglas man Cillian Murphy says it was his drama teacher in PBC Cork, Billy Wall, that inspired him to enter acting. The actor says he also learned one very important lesson at PBC Cork - being happy". The article also quotes Cillian as having said "I'd probably have been wealthier if I had stayed with law, but pretty miserable doing it."
To further clear up the question of William Wall, he was the college's teacher for both Debating and Drama, in addition to being an English teacher. In the Irish secondary school curriculum, English only treats drama in its written form. PBC offers active-participation in Drama, but not an examinable subject: rather, as an extra-curricular, after-school activity. Mr. Wall would therefore have been both Cillian Murphy's English teacher and his Drama teacher. --Editor of Podium 2008 (talk) 15:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but I've already worked the information into the article using a different source. On a side note, the Examiner's "being happy" thing seems highly dubious given all that I've read about Murphy. --Melty girl (talk) 17:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fansites

Two external links were just removed for copyvio reasons. What's the reason to think these sites are infringing? The movie fanatic, one of those links, appears to be a legitimate for-profit corporation. I doubt they're in business to do that. Wikidemo (talk) 22:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I actually don't agree with the policy, but here it is: WP:EL, also known as WP:FANSITE. I'm personally acquainted with tMF staff, and I'm pretty sure that they acquire photos from all over the web just like most fansites do -- they grab 'em. The site is run by indie film fans -- very nice ones, but nonetheless... Incorporating doesn't mean that an entity is in line with copyright. As I said, I don't agree with the policy -- after all, I don't see how WP can be held responsible for what other sites do just because we link to them. But I'm not a copyright lawyer, and I don't know how this policy came to be. Personally, I think both sites would enhance the External links section, because they're both very useful to someone who wants to know more about Cillian Murphy, but WP policy overrules it. --Melty girl (talk) 23:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
The law's actually kind of subtle and WP is being conservative rather than dealing with the legal complexities. Being organized and incorporating, and being the product of a number of people with some editorial oversight, are usually hits that an outfit is goint to take copyright more seriously. After all, we would normally assume that the copyright is okay when we visit a site unless we have reason to believe otherwise - their site is so well done it is hard to distinguish that from one that is legit, say hollywood.com. If you have some personal knowledge that they don't, that's fair. Wikidemo (talk) 17:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I do personally know them. And I really like them and their site -- I like many fansites, and they're one of the best. But take a good look at their photo credits, and you'll see the evidence that they are not a legally-together web publication where copyright is concerned. Unless something has just changed, some of the photo credits go to other fansites. --Melty girl (talk) 18:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)