Talk:Craig Ferguson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Craig Ferguson article.
Article policies

the 666th show was on 5/03/08 He made a lot of fun of the number 666. tilda Woober (talk) 08:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC) woober Woober (talk) 08:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

So there. This is sort of new because he's protected on Wikipedia now from random updates.Woober (talk) 08:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)wooberWoober (talk) 08:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)Funny, because I think my telling them to see the Wiki post prompted the protection process. I am a Ferguson phile sort of and I thought they should be aware. So I emailed them. I was hoping for corrections. They froze this site completely! Whoa! Cut and paste, I didn't post in the right spot here. Love all of you Wiki volunteers... I hope you had fun in Egypt if you went. I wish I had been there with you. Woober (talk) 08:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)wooberWoober (talk) 08:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC) He did a lot of Enya imitations to imply the number 666. Why? I think it's because of the nebulous nature of Enya and 666.Woober (talk) 08:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)woober Um, I wrote some of the more accepted portions of this article. : ) Thanks for the editing you wondrous, yet at proper times hateful, volunteers!

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.

Contents

[edit] "Alcoholism"

CF's struggles with alcoholism seem to be a major part of his life. Should this be added?


I think the last part of his "Personal" about his past struggles with alcoholism is more of an interpretation than what he factualy said on his show about that part of his life. Would be good also to put a link to that speach (available on youtube : "http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bbaRyDLMvA" (not that I'm lazy, I'm just not good at editing html))

[edit] "OCD"

I don't think we need to know about his OCD or non-OCD unnless he wants to tell us about it. Let's relate to the Man and not the illness.

He's a great comic and obviously a great human being. Let's appreciate that.

128.138.173.204 19:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Craig seems to exhibit symptoms of Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder. Evidenced by his repeating of the same catch phrases and jokes well beyond the limits of normal behavior. Has he ever openly discussed this or is there further evidence of this from other projects he has been involved in.

Some jokes are funny only the first time. Others endure. And some are funny precisely because of one-time-only variations from the habitual way of repeating the thing, and would not be funny but for habitual repetition. Craig Ferguson is a master of all of these techniques. Michael Hardy 21:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I see your point, David Letterman does this as well. However Dave will do it for a week to a month or so. Craig however has been doing the same jokes and mannerisms for so long it seems more strange than funny. Sometimes when watching him I can see him wince when delivering the cheeky monkey line like it pains him to say it for the hundreth or so time.

Johnny Carson repeated the same jokes for nearly 30 years! I don't think Craig has OCD just because he repeats jokes. One comedic effect on such a setup makes a joke sometimes funnier over time because it's been delivered so much.Char645 09:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

My guess is that Craig's repetitiveness lets us in on "the joke." If you are a regular viewer, you're in the inner circle of "late night friends in-the-know," if not, you have to get with the program...a brilliant technique, really. Then again, many of my recovering alcoholic pals have symptoms of OCD, so maybe it's just who he is. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.65.44.104 (talk • contribs) 07:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC).

[edit] "Liberal Bias"

Who has criticized Ferguson for his (rather tame, in my opinion) digs at Fox news? Also, as far as I can tell, all this shows is that he may be a liberal (which he freely admits, anyway- there was a NY Times Magazine interview with him in which he said so). To be biased one needs to purport to be objective. By saying, "I'm making stuff up, just like Fox news!" Ferguson is explicitly denying his intent to be objective. This seems like a lame attempt to sneek in a link to the Bias article. I will remove the whole paragraph if no one chimes in. Nigel Napalm 22:55, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Britney Spears

I'd like to praise the editor of this site for quickly adding Ferguson's defence of Britney Spears and decision to "leave the vulnerable alone."

What a breath of fresh air to have someone take a stand for kindness in media and celebrity coverage when someone is really suffering.

Viciousness in the public arena wasn't always this bad, there was once a lot more civility in public discourse.

Ferguson is now my hero and so is the editor of this site.

128.138.173.204 19:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC) I had to fix some typos there.Sposato (talk) 00:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dancer

I'm pretty sure Ferguson studied to be a dancer at college. I remember seeing his TV special (just after he'd dumped the Bing Hitler character) and I'm sure he was a quite accompished stage dancer. I'll see if I can find anything about that. -- John Fader (talk | contribs) 09:51, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Well, he didn't go to college. He's said so many times. On an NPR interview with Terry Gross, however, he talked about performing in some plays and cabaret shows that involved dancing. Maybe that's where he learned.Nigel Napalm 22:54, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't have it to hand, but I am certain the fanzine for the 'Honey at the Core' tape cassette - on which Ferguson appears as Bing Hitler - mentions his having studied dance in New York.

[edit] "Craig Ferguson", or "TV's Craig Ferguson"?

I'd say it would be incorrect to begin the article by including "TV's" within the bolding of the title name at it's first appearance, thus:

TV's Craig Ferguson is the host of the Late Late Show...

One the other hand, if it says

TV's Craig Ferguson is the host of the Late Late Show...

with only the name bolded, then it does not make it look as if the term "TV's" is actually part of his name, or an official title or the like. A journalist can write about "TV's Milton Berle", and the word "TV's" just helps identify the person. That seems harmless. The fact that Ferguson himself jocularly always begins his show by introducing himself that way doens't make it harmful. Michael Hardy 00:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I think that people who are fans of the show will enjoy seeing it there. It is pretty harmless. --rogerd 23:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
I disagree, I certainly think that we should eliminate the "TV's", its fairly unusual for Wikipedia and goes against the WP:MOS. It also first comes off as thoughtless vandalism by a "IP user" due to its placement. The only time any text should be placed before the bolded article name is when the word is "The", or as otherwise neccesary. The prefix "TV's" is also unneccesary as we can easily clarify that Ferguson is famous for appearing on television in the following sentences or even in the same sentence (i.e. "Craig Ferguson (BIRTHDATE) is a Scottish-born actor and television star"). So I'd be okay with a intro. rewrite, I can perform it if necessary.. — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 21:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't know if you have ever seen his show, but he always introduces himself as "TV's Craig Ferguson". Yes this is non-standard, but as I see it, it is quite harmless. See Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. --rogerd 22:43, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
The only time any text should be placed before the bolded article name is when the word is "The", or as otherwise neccesary.
The only time??? There are very frequent occasions for the bolded title phrase to appear halfway through a moderately long opening sentence. Michael Hardy 22:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

... a few examples:

In mathematics, a quantity that grows exponentially (or geometrically) is one that grows at a rate proportional to .........
In mathematics, a polynomial sequence, i.e., a sequence { pn(x) : n = 0, 1, 2, 3, ... } of polynomials in which the index of each polynomial equals its degree, is a Sheffer sequence (from Isadore M. Sheffer) if the linear operator Q on polynomials in x defined by
Qpn(x) = npn−1(x)
is shift-equivariant.
In order theory, a field of mathematics, a locally finite partially ordered set is one for which every closed interval
[a, b] = {x : a ≤ x ≤ b}
within it is finite. For every locally finite poset and every field of scalars there is an incidence algebra, an associative algebra defined as follows.
In statistics, the concepts of error and residual are easily confused with each other.
In multivariate statistics, the importance of the Wishart distribution stems in part from the fact that it is the probability distribution of the maximum likelihood estimator of the covariance matrix of a multivariate normal distribution.
In this case the bolded article name never appears. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Hardy (talk • contribs)
Your list of examples is nice, but can you present even one example where an article showcasing a person uses this method? I doubt you'll be able to because it's simply a ridiculous concept and absolutely and completely unnecessary—in all of the examples you showed I found that texts preceding the article's title were necessary to explain the concept of the article. Your viewpoint here is akin to starting the George W. Bush article with "America's George W. Bush is the 43rd President of the United States"—completely and utterly pointless and unprofessional. — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 02:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
(I gave two such examples on user:CrazyInSane's talk page. One of them began thus: "His Holiness, Pope Damian of Alexandria was ...." (or something like that). Michael Hardy 00:44, 29 April 2006 (UTC))

CiS goes a bit far in saying that only "The" should ever appear before an article title in the lead paragraph, but in this particular case he is right. The word "TV's" is unencyclopedic by its very nature (I bristle at making a possessive out of an abbreviation; "Television's" would be marginally more acceptable), and worse, it's completely out of place. If this is some kind of inside joke among Ferguson fans, then it needs to be explained, later in the article, not inserted into the lead for fans to snicker at when they read it and to bewilder everyone else. This is such a clear cut case that I'm removing it now. Powers 12:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've edited it so that the first paragraph reads as follows:
"TV's Craig Ferguson" (as he introduces himself to his audiences) (born May 17, 1962) is a Scottish comedian and actor who has done work both in front of and behind the camera. He is the host of The Late Late Show with Craig Ferguson.
The phrase is in quotation marks. I believe the quote is factually correct. The parenthesis correctly attributes it and puts it in its proper setting. Each night at the beginning of his show he greets his audience by saying "Welcome to the Late Late Show. I'm your host, TV's Craig Ferguson." Michael Hardy 00:40, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
It is my firm opinion that it doesn't fit Wikipedia's style, even when phrased as above. The veracity of the anecdote is not in question -- and in fact, it is covered later in the article, where it should be. What is in question is the appropriateness of making it the subject of the lead sentence. I also question why it is so important to you to make sure this jocularity is given pride of place in a serious article. Powers 03:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Jocularity is what Craig Ferguson is about, and seriousness requires the article to convey that clearly. It makes the article clearer, more accurate, and more comprehensible. Michael Hardy 19:24, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I have to strongly disagree with your final sentence. I really cannot see how that is at all a supportable statement. Powers 15:51, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

It is clearer because it is more memorable; it is more memorable because it is humorous. It's not just humor for the sake of humor; it's humor as a memory aid. Michael Hardy 01:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Some very sober writing, e.g. a biographical sketch in Reader's Digest, can refer to "TV's Ed Sullivan", etc. So why is that in any way ungrammatical or too informal? Michael Hardy 01:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to "burst your bubble", Michael, but I can assure you no one is going to unanimously agree with your assertion that "TV's" is encyclopedic, therefore I cannot see it ever being placed in this article without being promptly removed. Again, if you feel it necessary, elaborating on how Ferguson refers to himself as "TV's Craig Ferguson" later on in the article is certainly welcome and encouraged. — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 01:51, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

If "promptly" means several months later, then experience bears you out. But it sat there during that time. Michael Hardy 02:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I was referring to future incidents. Since administrators and other users are now aware of this, they will ensure the prefix no longer is placed on this article. — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 02:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
There's no need for your arrogant, self-satisfied tone of voice. Try to be nice. 4.159.11.95 19:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I would be interested in getting an outside view on this, as I've not seen anyone but the three of us take an interest. Do you know of any admins who have? Powers 14:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm certainly not an admin, but I'll throw my voice behind NOT including "TV's." It does read simply as an in-joke, and Wikipedia is not a fan page. Croctotheface 09:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm an admin, a fan (and countryman) of Craig from way back when he was in Red Dwarf and 2000 Not Out, and I've just spent 3 weeks in the US where I very much enjoyed watching the show. Imho "TV's" should not be included in the opening line, as it contradicts style and is more appropriately mentioned in the body of the article. I appreciate the jocular aspect behind the idea, but it's better to leave it out of the intro. Deizio talk 19:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Use of first name

I removed all of the references to his first name only. Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies), this is discouraged because "The use of the first name gives the impression that the writer knows the subject personally, which, even if true, is not relevant.". Also, in my opinion, it makes the article read like a People Magazine fluf-piece. --rogerd 21:26, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Controversy

other than the toronto bit, not of the so called controvery comes across as controversal at all, was there something more to the starbucks story that is written here? as complaining that a starbucks doesnt have a toilet seems a perfectly resonable thing to do. as for the Fox News/Bob Barker bits, you know i do believe thaere is a difference between controversy and satire especially when there has been no reaction to so called "controversal comments". Kejoxen 09:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Everything in the controversy section was said as a joke on the show. I want to delete the entire section, which is inappropriately labeled. - GilliamJF 05:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the "Controversy" section includes no actual controversy, just examples of humor. While no one individual is likely to find every joke or bit on a particular show to be amusing, there is nothing in this section as currently written that would qualify as any more controversial than the typical fare seen nightly on most American nighttime talk shows. Unless someone can demonstrate that this section is accurately presented and relevant to the article, I think that it should be eliminated soon. --DannyZ 06:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


I deleted it. There was no controversy. --172.194.140.119 03:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikify.

Contrary to the most recent editor, this article DOES need to be wikified. It lacks any sense of organization whatsoever. It's just a mess of information right now. It says that he's best known for his work on _The Drew Carey SHow_, which I can only assume is from a version of the article from before he got _The Late Late Show_. I'm re adding the tag. Please don't remove it until the article is organized into discreet and discernable sections. Croctotheface 11:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to add the cleanup tag to split the difference. Croctotheface
I added some section headers and did some reorganization of the text (I didn't delete anything). It still needs a lot of work to be considered wikified, but at least the info is grouped now so it's easier to understand and edit. Also, it might be better to move some of the Late Late Show-specific things to the Late Late Show (CBS) page. Bluefrue 06:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I removed the tag as there is now a form of organization. I agree that the quality of the writing could and should be higher. Croctotheface 10:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citizenship?

Anyone know if he's a citizen yet? I thought he just mentioned "I'm glad to be an American" on his show and he's been talking about his application forever now... Viper007Bond 08:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I was just watching the episode from Oct. 25, and he mentioned with Kevin Nealon that he could get in trouble with his citizenship application for talking about his legal trouble. Also, the Pres. Bush sketch he did earlier in the show noted that he couldn't vote. ShawnLee 20:13 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Apparently Bill Bryson is now a British citizen - why can't they just do a swap? 217.155.20.163 02:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I find it pretty interesting that he is a household name in the USA but the average Joe in his native Scotland and the UK as a whole has never heard of him!Just goes to show the Americans love a Scottish accent. I'm from Scotland so I was surprised that someone from Glasgow has no recognition back here for what they have accomplished over in the USA.--CharlesBronson18 14:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

What on earth gives you the impression that he is unknown in Scotland? He has been a very weel kent face for decades now (sorry Craig, but you are getting on a bit now... ). I can remember seeing those 'Bing Hitler' posters splattered around the Edinburgh of my childhood, during the Festival. And for a long time he was never off the flippin telly! True, since he crossed the pond his profile has dropped, but most Scots over the age of 20 would recognise his fizzog.
And plenty of people in his homeland have noted his successful career in the States, and wish him all the very best! Good on you. --Mais oui! 06:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
When he's naturalised, I'll put him in that category. Until the ceremony hits the AP wire, I'll use the UK ex-pat tag.
It's not unusual for some British celebrities to be better known in the US than at home and vice versa.Sposato (talk) 00:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
One more thing. Since the big day is coming, the article can use US spelling.Sposato (talk) 00:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
OK, he was supposed to get sworn in today (February 1st). Did it happen? Michael Hardy (talk) 02:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Just as you typed your post. I changed the ex-pat category to the naturalized citizen one since policy only allows one or the other.75.95.39.239 (talk) 02:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dr. Drew Pinsky

In case anyone was wondering, I changed the Dr. Drew reference to note that he's a medical doctor and not a psychologist. ShawnLee 20:13 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Theme music

after listening to the theme, i think CBS as the last line wrong. Craig sings "Tomorrow's Just YOUR Future Yesterday" not "Tomorrow's Just a Future Yesterday" as on CBS and here! could someone check and see what i am saying is right!--86.136.221.140 01:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Incident with Bill Maher

I changed the line "made light of child molestation" to "made a controversial comment about child molestation." I read the transcript of the incident (see the footnote) and I don't think Maher trivialized or laughed at molestation, but was simply comparing it to severe physical violence. His point was simply that noncoercive molestation isn't as bad as violence. His language was characteristically blunt and polemic, of course, but he never said that child molestation wasn't bad. On the contrary, he said: "That’s just plain wrong." and "Very wrong." I don't see how saying "X is very wrong, however it's not as horrible as Y" can be called "making light of X." --Lode Runner 23:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Someone reverted my changes. If you believe that the comment was indeed "making light of child molestation", explain your reasoning here. To me, "making light" implies trivialization, dismissiveness, or intentional humor and Bill Maher did not exhibit any of these things in his statements. His comments were many things--blunt, insensative, controversial, politically incorrect, and polemic, but I do not believe that the comment itself was meant to "make light" of anything. Yes, the crowd laughed after his "gently masturbated" comment (you can see the entire incident here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zx2o9C12yo) but his point wasn't flippantly delivered, and I don't think that line was purposefully crafted to provoke laughter--rather, it was crafted to be as blunt as possible so as to better illustrate his point (in the typically polemic Bill Maher fashion.) Take away the cameras and the studio audience's laughter (note that Maher didn't smile until after the laughter), and it would've been a 100% serious conversation. Maher said that molestation was "very wrong" and yet, if he had to choose between being on the receiving end of molestation (in this context, as a sexually mature 14 year old boy. No, I'm NOT saying it's right and I'm not defending the scumbag Michael Jackson, just pointing out that there is a massive difference between a teenager and a physically-undeveloped child) and being "savagely beaten", he would rather be molested. And I believe he truly meant it, and I'm not so sure I disagree with that reasoning, and I don't think that this reasoning in any way trivializes or downplays the evil that is child molestation. Being "savagely beaten" can maim you, it can *kill* you. The psychological scars of molestation can run deep indeed, but at least they can't *kill* you, at least they can't cause you to suffer permanent, debilitating injury (this on TOP of the psychological scars that severe beatings often leave behind.)
Post here before reverting again, or I'll have the article locked. --Lode Runner 18:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alcoholism

I don't want to start a battle over words, but I've changed Mr. Ferguson's status as a "recovered alcoholic" to that of "recovering alcoholic." Having a history of substance abuse myself, I've never heard any health practitioner refer to alcoholism in the curable sense. To quote an article from Answers.com[1]:

"Recovery from alcoholism is a life-long process. In fact, people who have suffered from alcoholism are encouraged to refer to themselves ever after as "a recovering alcoholic, " never a recovered alcoholic. This is because most researchers in the field believe that since the potential for alcoholism is still part of the individual's biological and psychological makeup, one can never fully recover from alcoholism. The potential for relapse (returning to illness) is always there, and must be acknowledged and respected. Statistics suggest that, among middle-class alcoholics in stable financial and family situations who have undergone treatment, 60% or more can be successful at an attempt to stop drinking for at least a year, and many for a lifetime."

Note that I'm not particularly bothered either way, and only decided to make the change after the previous wording caught my eye. If someone feels strongly that it should be reverted, feel free, but note that your view is probably in the minority. --64.222.222.25 06:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ferguson and the Scottish people

Craig Ferguson should be linked to Scottish people to associate the article with the distinct anthropological and cultural atmosphere of his youth and personal development. In the first line of the article for Ferguson, the phrase "Scottish actor, etc.," refers to a person, not a place. It would seem the most natural and grammatically correct phrase to link to the Scottish people article. User Mais oui has previously cited a policy which does not exist in order to reinforce the desire that the phrase be linked to Scotland, which is neither grammatically correct nor useful to enlighten readers about anything more than the territory upon which occurred the accident of Ferguson's birth. My interest in the matter is as a Scot, a Wikipedian, and a person with an interest in the Ferguson article. I have never edited the content of the Scottish people article. I simply believe it is more useful than the Scotland article in establishing the influence of Ferguson's Scottish background upon his career and habits. Pending discussion with Mais oui, I plan to make the change discussed. However, I would like to solicit any other comments here. 67.101.243.74 08:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The plain fact of the matter is that we link to the country article for nationality descriptors:
  • '''Pierre Moinot''' (born [[March 29]], [[1920]] in [[Poitou]] – died [[March 6]], [[2007]] in [[Paris]]) was a [[France|French]] novelist.
  • '''Samuli Torssonen''' (born [[November 12]], [[1978]], according to the [[Internet Movie Database]]) is a [[Finland|Finnish]] film writer, director, actor and producer.
  • '''Katherine Anne Couric''' (born [[January 7]], [[1957]]) is an [[United States|American]] [[media personality]] who became well-known as co-host of [[NBC]]'s [[The Today Show|''Today'']].
There are, quite literally, hundreds of thousands of examples of this precedent.
There is something profoundly unpleasant with this obsession with ethnicity. Scotland is a civic nation. It is very far indeed from being ethnically or linguistically homogenous. Not all Scottish people are "Scottish people" (sic) (see Demographics of Scotland). Mr Ferguson's ethnicity is totally and utterly irrelevant, and totally unsourced, per WP:RS, too. Go and read Wikipedia:Reliable sources and undue weight. --Mais oui! 08:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
If you continue with your campaign to give undue weight to Mr Ferguson's ethnicity (totally unsourced), then I will raise this as a blatant breach of WP:BLP. --Mais oui! 08:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
It is not a "spam link." As I have said, I recognize that there are articles that link to the respective homelands of people, but there are also articles that link to the people. It is not my business, nor is it of interest to me, if you want to enforce incidents of poor grammar and inexact links to articles just because some other articles include such seeming errors. There is nothing breathtaking about it, although I have to stifle a laugh at the notion that my interest to edit in favor of grammar and relevance has taken your breath away. It also does not bother me that you somehow feel bugged by having to communicate with your colleagues here. If that is the case, please rest assured that I shall consider an extended silence on the matter a concession to my views on your part. Finally, in any further "correspondence," please refrain from suggesting my interest in discribing Ferguson as a member of the Scottish people "spam." There is nothing at Wikipedia:Questions that will resolve this conflict; please keep the discussion relevant to the change.
Furthermore, I have no interest in defending the purity of the Scottish ethnicity. If you aren't ethnically Scottish, just an enthusiastic resident of Scotland, God bless you. Yet, the Scottish people article is more correct because it is about Scottish people like Craig Ferguson. If the Scottish people article seems non-neutral, that is the article you need to edit - not this one. You are required to discuss changes or else you concede the matter to those who are willing to discuss it. 67.101.243.74 09:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
The above refers in part to statements by Mais oui! in three discussions on this matter that he has opted to delete from his talk page. Those complete discussions may be viewed here. He has also deleted those comments I copied here for consideration by a wider editorship. That deletion was technically vandalism on his part, but I'll let it slide and I ask that other editors do the same. As he has conceded his arguments by way of refusing to discuss anything further, outstanding arguments are limited to those listed above to which I have already responded. Ferguson is a member of the Scottish people; whether he be so ethnically or nationally is of little relevance as the article describes both. I have not found any source that describes him otherwise and all sources describe him as Scottish, including those already cited. If Mais oui! decides to grace us with his further correspondence on the matter, he is welcome to do so. If not, I will make the proposed change in 72 hours. Any other comments are also requested. 67.101.243.74 09:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
In that case, this article will be brought to the attention of WP:BLP in 72 hours. --Mais oui! 09:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
That is unnecessary. I will refer to the following references already cited in the article that describe Ferguson as Scottish.
  • "A wry Scottish comic/actor who had..." from Yahoo! Movies
  • "Birthplace: Glasgow, Scotland" and "...Ferguson returned [home] to Scotland" from NNDB
  • "Born in Glasgow, Scotland, Ferguson got his start..." from CBS
I believe the argument you are struggling to make is that I am pushing some agenda about the distant heritage of Ferguson or Scottish people in general. That is not the case and I feel you would have to make a fairly convoluted argument to have someone else conclude that from trying to have the line that describes Ferguson as a Scottish person linked to Scottish people rather than Scotland. 67.101.243.74 10:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

There is a request on Wikipedia:Third opinion‎ on this issue.[2] It is one I come to cold as I have never considered the problem before. So I read what is here and thought, OK I'll look to see what is currently linked for a prominent Scotsman and looked at Gordon Brown. (sigh! no use!). So I went to the second division: Alex Salmond article links Scottish to Scotland so does the Tam Dalyell and Billy Connolly articles -- I gave up after three. Given that the article Scottish people includes "or a person who is descended from ethnic Scots and identifies as a Scottish person." and other articles seem to link to Scotland, I think linking to Scotland is less likely to open up the possibility of confusion in the mind of the person following the link than linking to Scottish people. Therefore I think the link should be to [[Scotland|Scottish]]. --Philip Baird Shearer 00:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it should link to Scottish people. It says "Craig Ferguson is a Scottish actor, etc., that is, a Scottish person. Even if other articles are mistakenly linked to Scotland because editors in the earliest days of Wikipedia linked them to the country rather than the people, don't you feel it is something we can change now to be more exact? It makes much more sense to me, anyway, to link "Ferguson was born in Glasgow, Scotland to Scotland. What do you think? 67.101.243.74 05:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
"Scottish" refers to his nationality, not to his ethnicity; therefore must link to the civic entity, not to some vague and highly subjective concept of "Scottish people". The WP:MOSBIO makes it crystal clear that it is nationality that is to be noted; and that ethnicity is only relevant to biographical articles in very limited situations. --Mais oui! 07:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you completely. I have no idea from where you have the notion that Scottish people is about anything other than the people from Scotland. It is about the Scottish nationality, not a secret circle of people of ancient Scottish descent or anything else weird as you seem to think. The article you persistently cite is about the place, Scotland, not the people who live there or are from there. Ferguson is a person, not a country. 67.101.243.74 20:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Since he is living in the States, and making his fame here, I think that a pipe to Scottish people would be more appropriate. If he were living in Scotland and making his fame while still based there, like Ken MacLeod, Charles Stross and that crowd, I would pipe to Scotland. I do think, however, that some people are making far too big a fuss about the whole thing. --Orange Mike 12:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

With no consensus reached, another three days before making the change seem in order. 67.101.243.74 01:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

67.101.243.74, stop reverting my change or I will take action to have your IP blocked. Bill Maher's comment did NOT make light of child molestation (in fact, he shared a traumatic childhood experience of his own) and I explained my reasoning clearly. Twice (see above.) If you cannot be bothered to state your case for the original version (which casts Maher in a bad light and trivializes the point he was making, a point which Ferguson was too dense to grasp) you have no business editing the article at all. --Lode Runner 03:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Movie

craig ferguson was in a movie called "the big tease" where he plays a homosexual hairdresser

[edit] Date of naturalization?

A recent edit to the article was accompanied by a summary saying he's now an American. Although I was aware he had passed the test, my impression was that he becomes a citizen when he is sworn in and that that will be at some later date. Does anyone know the specifics of the timing? Michael Hardy (talk) 23:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


You know, this page is longer than the actual article. I have recently begun reading discussions, and it's fascinating how hostile people get. It seems ridiculous. I can understand if it were regarding someone's actual personal life. Apparently this page IS some people's lives. Remind you of anyone? I KNOW! 02:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)PaulaWalla —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.40.105.16 (talk)