Talk:Jonathan Pryce

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Jonathan Pryce article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Good article Jonathan Pryce has been listed as one of the Arts good articles 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 reassessment.
To-do list for Jonathan Pryce: edit · history · watch · refresh

Here are some tasks you can do:

    Contents

    [edit] Diverse Actor

    There is no need for a citation regarding Pryce's work as a diverse actor. His film credits at the end of this article, his IMDB page, and mention of his theatrical roles DEFINE diversity. I have removed the 'citation needed' tag. Please do not revert unless there is a good explanation. --BadMojoDE 21:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Add to Career

    If memory serves me correctly, I saw him as Ebenezer Scrooge in A Christmas Carol on Broadway some five years ago, in 2002. The "career" section is pretty condensed, so I'm not sure how I'd add it in-- being *bold* won't save me from accidentally ruining the secton's grammar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.80.203.91 (talk) 04:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] GA Review

    This is one of the few articles up for GA that fails for reasons other than lack of citations. The article satisfies all GA criteria with the exception of good writing. It reads like a laundry list of Jonathan Pryce's work rather than a coherent article. I also don't think there is enough about his personal life or his early life. I would suggest following the template in the Ian McKellen article and split it into a theatrical and film section, as well as having more written about the man himself. This will require a substantial rewrite of the article, which is why I have failed it rather than holding it. Please renominate this article once it has been rewritten.Zeus1234 20:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

    Ahhh Zeus1234, we meet again. I was actually using Kevin Spacey as a model, but you're right McKellen's layout is more appropiate, thanks for the review. -Yamanbaiia 14:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
    The Kevin Spacey model is quite all right as well; I merely suggested the Ian McKellan one, simply because him and Pryce have had (somewhat) similar careers. The problem with this article is that it reads like a timeline of Pryce's career, without much more information. Use whichever template you wish, but make the prose more engaging. Zeus1234 15:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

    To clarify, i went for Spacey's layout. The thing about he's early and his personal life is that there's not much to say about it. He (apparently) is not gay, not a vegan, not a human rights activist, not a buddhist, etc. He doesn't seem to support the Conservatives or Fianna Fáil or the Republicans, maybe he supports the UMP?. He got married thirty years ago and his children have not becomed actors/drug adicts/race car drivers, AND because he lost his looks before reaching the mainstream, there aren't many interviewers that care to ask him about his personal life/views on stuff/how did he became an actor. So, i've tried to make the article more "engaging" so it looks less like a "laundry list of Jonathan Pryce's work" (ouch!), but i'm afraid he's movie/stage/tv roles, a couple of reviews and interviews, are all that's available. Yamanbaiia (talk) 04:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] GA Review 2

    GA review (see here for criteria)
    1. It is reasonably well written.
      a (prose): b (MoS):
    2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
      a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    3. It is broad in its coverage.
      a (major aspects): b (focused):
    4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
      Fair representation without bias:
    5. It is stable.
      No edit wars etc.:
    6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
      a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    7. Overall:
      Pass/Fail:

    Comments:

    1. I'm not really buying the fair-use rationale on Image:Brazil-JPryce2.jpg. Since the objective is for the project to be as free as possible, I don't really believe that its inclusion is justified, especially when there's already a free picture of him in the infobox. Same with Image:Evita-Madonna-Pryce.jpg.
    Well yes, but the images are not being used to show what Pryce looks like, because as you said there is already a free picture. Both images are used for critical commentary and discussion of Pryce as Peron and Pryce as Sam Lowry, so their fair use should be valid. Besides, if it's ok for FA articles (ex. Anthony Michael Hall, Jackie Chan) and some GA articles (ex. Forest Whitaker, Michael Palin). Why is it not ok here?
    That's really strange, I had no idea that that was allowed. Well, if it's good enough for FA, it's good enough for me. I'll let it go. Cheers, CP 17:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
    1. The "Personal life" section is far too small to justify its inclusion under a Level 2 heading. I suggest that it either be significantly expanded or merged with the "Early life and education" section as a more general "Personal life" section. One-two sentences cannot be their own paragraphs, let alone their own Level 3 Headers.
    Merged
    1. Speaking of which, all one-two sentence paragraphs must either be expanded or merged with the surrounding paragraphs, as they cannot stand alone.
    2. The lead needs to conform to WP:LEAD. Specifically, it must touch upon every major point/heading made in the main article. For example, it does not summarize anything about his personal or early life.
    Expanded
    1. "During this period of his life, Pryce continued to perform on stage, noteworthy as the successful but self-doubting writer Trigorin in a London production of Anton Chekhov's The Seagull in late 1985." (1980s) requires a citation.
    Added
    1. If you're going to make the claim that "The film is one of the most famous fiascos in film history." (1980s), that definitely requires some direct citations to back it up.
    Added
    1. I question how much Youtube can be used a source, especially when the fact could be cited with IMDB, but it's almost certainly a copyright violation to do so.
    I'm not so sure, because it's the owner of the video (ANS entertainment news) that uploaded it. Anyway i changed it for a direct link to the video on their site.
    1. "The film has gained cult favorite status over time, however, and in a commentary track on the DVD edition of Tideland, Gilliam now says that Munchausen is one of the films that his fans most often cite as a favorite (along with Monty Python and the Holy Grail, Brazil, 12 Monkeys and Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas)." (1980s). Two problems with this. First of all, it requires a citation that it gained cult status. Secondly, you can use a DVD commentary as a source, but it still requires a proper in-line citation. Many of The Simpsons episode GAs should have examples of how to do this properly.
    Added
    1. "Pryce successfully returned to the stage and originated the role of The Engineer, an Eurasian pimp in the award winning West End musical Miss Saigon. His performance was praised in England," (1990s). Aside from not sounding very neutral, if you're going to comment on its success and that his performance was praised in England, it will require a source (unless it's mentioned in the NYT article, in which case just strike this)
    Added. It was mentioned in the first page of the electronical NYT ref (a few lines below), but what the hell.
    1. "In 1995, Pryce and Emma Thompson starred in the film Carrington, which turns around a platonic relationship between gay writer Lytton Strachey and painter Dora Carrington. Pryce's portrayal of Strachey gained him the Best Actor Award at that year's Cannes Film Festival." (1990s) requires a citation, unless I have missed it somewhere
    Added
    1. "Madonna's performance, however, was acclaimed and, in 1997, her You Must Love Me won an Academy Award for Best Original Song as well as a Golden Globe Award for Best Original Song." (1990s) needs a citation
    Added

    To allow for these changes to be made, I will be placing the article on hold for a period of seven days, after which it may be failed without further notice. Please note as well that this is only a preliminary review, and I will be conducting a secondary review, mainly focusing on the references. The hold may not be extended for the second review, so please ensure that the above concerns are addressed in a timely manner. Thank you for your work thus far. Cheers, CP 04:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

    There are still some one-two sentence paragraphs that need to be expanded or merged (first sentence of the lead, first paragraph of "1980s," the last paragraph of "1990s") and I still feel like the lead is missing something. For the latter, however, since I can't put my finger on exactly what it is, I can't hold it against you. Might be something to think about for FA though. Anyhow, since most of the work has been done, I am now checking the references. Cheers, CP 17:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
    I also disliked the lead, so there i've changed it, i also expanded the 1980s and merged the 1990s
    Reference #21 is still a Youtube video, one that doesn't look like it was uploaded by the company. Couldn't this fact be cited by IMDB? Otherwise, everything looks great! Once these last two things are fixed, I can pass the article for GA status! Cheers, CP 17:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
    Changed, i forgot about that one.Yamanbaiia (talk) 23:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
    Excellent! Everything looks good, and I will be passing the article to Good Article status. Congratulations, and thank you for your hard work! Cheers, CP 05:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] James Sloyan

    I've removed this:

    Pryce's performance in these commercials was similar, in many ways, to James Sloyan's voice-over in Lexus commercials.[1][2] (It is interesting that both actors also played a taken-advantage-of character in film, namely, Pryce's character James Lingk in Glengarry, GlenRoss and Sloyan's character Mottola in The Sting.[3])

    I don't see why this Sloyan commercial is relevant to Pryce's career. I would appreciate for the IP (who is most likely User:Jpsloyan) to expand on what he found on those books that he uses as references, do they say that both commercials are voluntarily similar? do they say that one was a great influence in the other one? If the only thing those books say is "Pryce was in Glengarry Glen Ross, Sloyan was in The Sting" is still OR and trivia information.-Yamanbaiia 22:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

    I agree with Yamanbaiia that the information the IP added was trivial, and he was right to put it in the Trivia section. However, he improperly interpreted what Abbotson was saying about the relationship between Pryce and Sloyan. Abbotson emphasizes the competition that Pryce presented in response to Sloyan's performance, and highlights the different approaches they take to the soon-to-be-important voice-over task in American car commercials. I edited the IP's addition accordingly. AnimalLover323 18:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

    No, if this article is ever to become a FA it cannot have that sort of irrelevant information. Who compared that guy with pryce? it is definetely not interesting and original research. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and trivia sections should be avoided. I really don't see any reasonable way of merging that info in the article as it is suggested in Wikipedia:Handling trivia, so i'm removing it again. -Yamanbaiia (talk) 23:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
    I happen to agree with AnimalLover on this one. This subject, although still an expanding field, is receiving substantial attention in scholarly works, and deserves to be noted somewhere on the page. The current journalism suggests that there may be underhanded currents in type-casting these particular actors in subservient character roles if the actors have entered the voice-over market. Sloyan and Pryce are not alone; current research on the application of this paradigm to the Acura voice-overs is revealing the same kind of disparate and prejudiced casting treatment for those actors as well. Obviously, there is a trend in the industry that is just being revealed now, and, despite being new, I think the fact that it is of enough concern warrant scholarly attention means it is certainly worthy of some mention on Wiki as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.117.205.217 (talk) 20:23, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
    I agree. I have been following this trend as well and find it fascinating. I think that if Yamanbaiia can not cite further, specific evidence as to why this information should not be included, that Yamanbaiia should be out-voted on this one and the information should go in so that people reading about Pryce for the first time can appreciate this aspect of his career. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.207.225.22 (talk) 17:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

    First of all, stop insulting me, do you really think i believe i'm talking to three people here?. What "trend"? there's nothing tangible here, no facts and certainly no "attention in scholarly works", please, let's take a look at the facts shall we?:
    Pryce

    • Welsh
    • 1993 and 1994, spokesman in a series of American television commercials for Infiniti (cars)
    • Movies+theater+TV+voicing

    James (who?) Sloyan

    Now, apart from the fact that both have been paid (one for APPEARING and the other one for VOICING) for these car commercials, what is it that's encyclopedic? that both have also played "a taken-advantage-of character in film"? First of all, that's POV, who said that?, and second, the commercials and these roles are not related! Pryce did "Glengarry Glen Ross" 4 years before the commercials, and Sloyan had a minor appearence in "The Sting" like 20 years before he started voicing the Lexus commercials, how is this "type-casting"? Plus, after the commercial, if you take a look at the article, Pryce's career has only kept on growing, while Sloyan has not really becomed an A-lister has he? This seems to be an attempt to give this Sloyan some airs of grandeur, but, if you really insist on having this on the article, well...then i'll just ask for a third opinion from an established user, because this is really becoming frustrating. --Yamanbaiia(free hugs!) 19:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

    Although I can not speak for the three persons Yamanbaiia appeared to be addressing earlier, I personally believe that she has a good idea about how to resolve this issue. However, I am worried that the established user chosen by Yamanbaiia will naturally be biased toward her point of view. To be fair to both sides, I think an established user should be chosen by each side to give an opinion on the noteworthiness of this information. If both of those users arrive at the same conclusion, so be it; however, if the users have differing opinions, then I think both sides should mutually choose an established user to give an opinion on those two opinions. Unless the opinion is obviously wrong, that should be the last word on this issue. The important thing is that no one is left out and this issue can be adjudicated fairly. I think this method is a lot more suited toward reaching those goals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.177.149.71 (talk) 07:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
    When i said that i would ask for a third opinion from an established user i meant to say that i would make a request for comment. If you (because i still believe this is the same person or someone related, specially after i saw the note left on your talk page 66.177..) feel so strongly about this, please go ahead and choose the user you like the most, why not even invite the GA reviewer? invite to the discussion whomever you like, i only want someone who has NEVER edited the James Sloyan article and that has been editing since at least November. --Yamanbaiia(free hugs!) 11:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
    I like what you guys are suggesting, but i don't think the user has to be editing since november. We need to remember that users and editors are not always the same set (see EF:EWAD). I'd like to not exculde the opinions of users which may bring a new point of view to the table. FA, here we come! AnimalLover323 (talk) 21:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
    I'd like to exclude the opinion of users that could probably be you. That's why i said November. You've got some nerve, FA here we come? you have brought nothing but unstabilty to the article!--Yamanbaiia(free hugs!) 21:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

    Whether the information is important or trivial is not the issue. It is unsourced, and unless a source can be cited which shows its relevance to Jonathan Pryce, it should not be included. If it's true that "scholarly sources" have covered this trend, then they should be cited and should relate to Pryce in some way. Paisan30 (talk) 22:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

    I personally take great offense to "Yamanbaiia" insinuating some sort of hacking going on simply because people want notable information on the Jonathan Pryce page. I think it is silly to assume that people are hacking in and using other peoples' user names just to get this on the article. To me that seems defensive and illogical if not impossible. Wikipedia keeps track of IP addresses and differentiates users (ever noticed this?); it should be obvious that just because one shares similiar views with another person on here, they are not "the same person". Even if it was possible to somehow hack into another account, Yamanbaiia is probably the very one guilty of such an offense. I love how Animallover323 just happens to agree with everything she says right after she says it. If anything, I think Yamanbaiia is projecting her own possibly guilty conduct onto others - kind of like how con-artists are abnormally sensitive to whether law-abiding people are in fact cheating them. After reviewing all the comments above, I think what is really going on here is that Yamanbaiia is trying to create a puff piece for Pryce and his career which excludes any potential embarrassment or denigrating information, despite it qualifying as notable or true. If so this is a violation of wikipedia guidelines, as articles are meant to provide neutral, notable information - not be puff pieces for the subject they cover. I would like to say to Yamanbaiia and Animallover (assuming they are not the "same person"), that I think the conduct toward the article has thus far been overly one-sided and controlling, with little or no support, and primarily defended on grounds of shifting blame: by insinuating that everyone else, (including me, I presume), is somehow engaged in a conspiracy to get this notable information in over Yamanbaiia's head. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Supervox2113 (talk • contribs) 07:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
    I'm glad someone finally had the guts to say it. I too am quite sick of immature wikipedians making "pet-projects" out of articles and losing all objectivity in the process. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.199.82.65 (talk) 22:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
    Yamanbaiia and I are not the same user. AnimalLover323 (talk) 17:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Television

    Created new section per IMDB information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.133.89.131 (talk) 00:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)